draw en σεως φόνων ee 


Ἰόμεεςα, PE aE AO ORL ON SP EE pnd καρ δὶ ida Ὧν. διυσῳ βαιθη δεμδι. δ, δ.υθχπον meta αν εις, 


itil in detain 
es Pe μα 


eat et a σοσωφυνύφφου 
bn Sent Ey ἀπψωνυος 
PP A game 0 Pt me ny 5|τ νυ 5.5 


Library of Che Theological Seminary 


PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 


Ὁ Ξε 


PRESENTED BY 
Mr, Hoel Lawrence Me Queen 


ι 
| 
7 
Dakine re, ie " “ 
ἐν ev ay \ " 
Δ Ae i) 
ἡ " τ ) iy! 
vines, Tenis as ie ae 
va 7 ‘vr " 
᾿ δ εν 
᾿ td te ᾿ Μ᾿" ᾿ 
i 
{ ; 
iy 
! P| 
je oe } ; 
vy Ἵ 1 i 
rh 
‘ f 
“4 ἢ > 1 Ψ 
Py. LY "» 
AY apis 
ον γ Ἂν aA 
ἌΤΗΝ a "1 ies 4 


ew οἱ 
7 


ΝΥ Υ 80S 02 hci τι 


The Fnternattonal Theological Library. 


EDITED BY 


CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.LItr., 


Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics Union Theological 
Seminary, New York; 


AND 


THE LATE STEWART Ὁ. F. SALMOND, D.D., 


Principal, and Professor of Systematic Theology and New Testament Excegests, 
United Free Church College, Aberdeen. 


πρΕΠσσρπππππππππσππππ“πΠο8π“π“π“π“πποΠ|οοσπ τ πκκτττττστστοττἱ....0....ϑδΧΚ([δ΄.δ.0.ὃ00.ό--΄-ΦἘοἘΠ7ἔὺὺοπΧποὁΠΕΕὌΕι π᾿ 
INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
By JAMES MOFFATT, B.D., D.D. 


LLL a a OSS 


INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARYs | TIT 


AN bd 


a ho 
Sef 
\ 


TO THE 


LITERATURE OF THE 
NEW TESTAMENT. 


BY 


ν᾿ 


JAMES MOFFATT, BD. DD. 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
1921 


Τὴ πάν! 
jeune 


ἔτι 


Ἧ " ay ᾿ 
Ἢ a 
4 


Τήν 


᾿ 4 ar nhey, HEIRS, pnt! ASYM ῬῚ ἐν 
a ἐν | ἵν cae ΔΝ Ki Pk: on un ᾿ Mie eh AS 
fo Ἰὰ ) ἐπ 
πο Υ 
iin yas et, Ane tT A ret ΤΙΣ | 


BU) VE 
ἜΣΑΝ SrA E: Pe Sac UES ie 
mA Ri 7 
ὴ ᾿ is ea) 


Ἣν 
Vinee Fa), 2 hvaes Ἄν mat rte 


SENATVI - VNIVERSITATIS - SANCTI - ANDREAE 
QVI - ME - S.S- THEOLOGIAE - DOCTOREM 
CREANDVM - DECREVIT 
HOC - OPVS - QVANTVLVMCVMQVE 
DEDICO 
GRATA - MEMORIA 


“Without doubt, some of the richest and most powerfu and populous 


“A 


communities of the antique world, and some of the grandest personalities 
and events, have, to after and present times, left themselves entirely 
unbequeath’d. Others have arrived safely, as from voyages over wide, 
century-stretching seas. The little ships, the miracles that have buoy’d 
them, and by incredible chances safely convey’d them (or the best of 
them, their meaning and essence) over long wastes, darkness, lethargy, 
ignorance, etc., have been a few inscriptions—a few immortal compo- 
sitions, small in size, yet compassing what measureless values of re- 
miniscence, contemporary portraitures, manners, idioms and beliefs, with 
deepest inference, hint and thought, to tie and touch for ever the old, 
new body, and the old, new soul! These ! and still these! bearing the 
freight so dear—dearer than pride—dearer than love. All the best 
experience of humanity, folded, saved, freighted to us here. Some of 
these tiny ships we call Old and New Testament. . . .” 
WALT WHITMAN, Democratic Vistas. 


book that is really old and really valuable has nothing to fear from 
the critic, whose labours can only put its worth in a clearer light, and 
establish its authority on a surer basis. In a word, it is the business 
of the critic to trace back the steps by which any ancient book has been 
transmitted to us, to find where it came from and who wrote it, to 
examine the occasion of its composition, and search out every link that 
connects it with the history of the ancient world and with the personal 
life of its author.” 
W. ROBERTSON SMITH, Zhe Old Testament in the 
Jewish Church (Lect. I.). 


“*From the first the living stream of christian experience, though holding 


that onward course of which the successive flood-marks are the epistle to 
the Romans and the gospel ascribed to St. John, had been stagnating by 
the way into pools formed on the one side by Judaism, on the other by 
philosophic systems. The popular habit of regarding the writings of 
the NT as a body of doctrine pitched into the world all at once, has 
caused this fact to be genérally overlooked. Yet an examination of these 
writings themselves might satisfy us that they came into being as 
successive assertions of the fulness of christian life against a cotempor- 
ancous stiffening of it either into Jewish ordinance or gentile philosophy.” 
T. H. GREEN, Works (vol. iii. p. 170). 


PREFACE 


---Φ.-- 


SINCE this manual is designed primarily for the use of 
students, most of whom need to be reminded that if the 
first commandment of research is, ‘ Thou shalt work at the 
sources, the second is, ‘Thou shalt acquaint thyself with 
work done before thee and beside thee,’ I have agreed to 
notice, as far as the limits of my space and knowledge 
permit, the views of scholars who for various reasons are 
led to occupy positions which differ from those adopted 
in the following pages. The literary criticism of the New 
Testament still contains a large number of unsettled 
problems, and it is only fair, in a handbook of this 
kind, that facilities should be given for comparing the 
ramifications of argument and argument. Among other 
things, I have tried to draw up sifted lists of references to 
the relevant literature for the convenience of those who 
desire to find their way about in the world of more or less 
recent opinion upon the subject. The bibliographies have 
to be read in the light of what Eusebius wrote at the close 
of the ninth book of his Preparatio Euangelica: καὶ πολὺς 
δὲ ἄλλος μναρτύρων ἡμῖν ὄχλος παλαιῶν τε καὶ νέων συγγραφέων 
ἐπιρρεὶ, τὴν ὁμοίαν τοῖς τεθεῖσι ψῆφον ἐπισφραγιζομένων, ὧν τὰς 
φωνὰς, λόγου προνοούμενοι συμμετρίας, τοῖς φιλομαθέσι ζητεῖν 
τε χαὶ διερευνᾶν ἀπολείψαντες, ἐπὶ τὴν λείπουσαν αὐτοὶ 
μεταβησόμεθα ἐπαγγελίαν. I could have wished to make 
1x 


Χ PREFACE 


the lists as well as the arguments ampler at several 
points. Still, they will perhaps serve, for all their 
defects, to give some clue to the main divergences of 
critical research from the track which has been outlined 
in the present volume. 


JAMES MOFFATT. 


BROUGHTY-FERRY, August 12th, 191 


CONTENTS 


MAD Et 
PAGE 
PREFACE . 5 . . . . ο Sesh: 
HISTORICAL TABLES . . . ‘ ° . xill 
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . ° . XXXV 
PROLEGOMENA. 

I, COLLECTION OF NT WRITINGS INTO A CANON: 
METHOD AND MATERIALS OF NT INTRODUCTION . I 
11. ARRANGEMENT OF NT WRITINGS Ξ . ΦΉΣ 
III. LITERARY SOURCES OF NT A . ° 21 
IV. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF NT . ὃ δι) 36 
V. SOME LITERARY FORMS IN NT . Ἴ Σ ΩΝ 
VI. THE CIRCULATION OF THE NT WRITINGS ὃ Sn ἢ79) 

VII. SOME LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NT 
WRITINGS. : . δ . . o §3 

CHAPTER I. 
THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL. 

(A) WITH THESSALONIKA (I AND 2 THESSALONIANS) . 64 
(B) WITH GALATIA (GALATIANS) ὃ ὃ . ᾿ 83 
(C) WITH CORINTH (1 AND 2 CORINTHIANS) : . 108 
(D) WITH ROME (ROMANS) . ° . . 159 
(Z) WITH COLOSSE (COLOSSIANS) τ e e 149 
(ΕἸ WITH PHILEMON . : . . . . 16Ὶ 


(G) WITH PHILIPPI (EE) ὃ . . . 165 


ΧΙ CONTENTS 


CHAPTER II. 
THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE. 


(A) THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM . . . . e 177 
(8) GOSPEL OF MARK . ° . . ° e 217 
(C) GOSPEL OF MATTHEW A . . . ο᾽ 243 
(2) WRITINGS OF LUKE (GOSPEL AND ACTS) e e 261 


CHAPTER III. 


HOMILIES AND PASTORALS. 


(A) THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER . . ° 5, 318 
JUDAS a . . δ e ° . 344 
2UPETER) - . . . . ° 1355 

(8) EPHESIANS . A - : . . . 523 
EPISTLES TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS . . . 395 

(C) HEBREWS : a ὃ C . ° + 4260 
JAMES : . : : . “ . 456 


(2) Two LETTERS OF JOHN THE PRESBYTER (2 AND 3 JOHN) 475 


CHAPTER IV. 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN - ς᾽ 483 

CHAPTER ΚΓ. 
(A) THE FOURTH GOSPEL : : . . .. 515 
(B) A JOHANNINE TRACT (1 JOHN) . . . . 582 
(C) THE JOHANNINE TRADITION . . . + 596 


INDEX . . . . . . e « 621 


é 
ΧΙ] 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


*(ya0d) 
(6b1-b£z) O18 «BIUASSaPY 10 snwoly 
*(691-6£z) snruuq *snddiwi9 fy 


Ὁ2 bg1-bSz) snynelg 


*BLIPUPXITY JO UO0T}OG 


ὉΧ0) 071g 5πιαθ Ὁ ΘΠΘΙΒ͵ 10 OusZ 


Ὁ3919) snueiyy 


Ὁ χ00) Oye 
*y υομοιάπῃ 


831-857) snipoyy sniucjjody 
‘(z1z-Lgz) sapaunyoy 


*(v61-bgz) sntazn “(Zoz—__) snddisAxy9 

*soysAred 10 snuosnuy 
‘(Voz 

-$gz) snotoipuy Ἵ *saudyysoywAg, 


(z£z patp) Ξϑιῃ 8910 


‘HUALVUALIT NILV] GNV πη) 


ὍΖΙ ai0jaq “(gf-1) ΠΟ 


‘OYd0G 10 snuosyuy 


ὁ S9}SBISIIID 
2 (1518) sniajeutaqy 


gsvaysuy 10 apysidy 


(661-612) ysaud 81 ‘11 uoWIS 


‘uouvd 
oyeydoid jo 95010 


"(οἷς +2 Aq) yonaey 
-Udq JO UOISIAA “YD 


‘HUNLVUALIT HsIMal 


*yoaar ὉΠ|90) 
61 ‘2U0}S LASOY 
991! pese[vap d9901T) 
*(Z61-00Z) xem uvlUOpacRA ysiy | COT 


‘woz “ewez 10 9120 5 
“91-(οζ ‘saueydidgy Awapojg 
"wouy ut οτάϊος 

‘eile jo suepuedapuy o1z 
"Ziz “erydey jo 9188 

*L61-Q1z “Δ ΔΙῚ 

Awajoyg pue 7891). ayy snyoon 
“UY UIIMJ9q Θ9.{Π|59]} 1 AO ALAA 
*(ZOZ-QIZ) IBA Sung puodsas 

"Zz 
‘goutaoid uewioy Ἐ ‘eurdyesty eye 


O27 


‘Szz ‘Jo 7891 
“9p pue uolseaur “51190 

"ὅτ ‘aWOY ΡῈΒ 9d90I5) 
uaamjaq suoneial ovWoldip 7511} 
‘ezz-Lbz ‘(sajadiong) ‘111 Awajoig | οἷξ 


‘ISVq HHL GNV ANOY Ὁ 


‘av oL£ GNV Ὅ Ὁ οἷς NAAMLAD AMALVYALIT GNV ANOLSIH AHL ALVULSATII OL *SATAVL ἸΝΌΙΜΟΙΒΊΗ 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


xiv 


| ‘OVI ‘(gb1) 


‘snsivy jo rayednuy | “7 ‘ayetduioo 103], esg aBeyleD pue τῃτΠ100 jo uononnsaq 
Ὁ Shr fonts) snruowWy ‘quaihZ Jo uosef *(S€1-Eb1) snweqeooeyy UOWIS 
*(‘weip) snniyw Ἢ snyosop *(of1-081) 195} *L11-gb1 ‘uoyskyg Awmajojig 
δι᾽ “Ἴ5Π| 9) 
snuiqry = ‘“wnjsogd “Vv SPEEOUN, *(gb1-6F1) rem tung ΡΜ], | oS: 
*snUIG[Y sniuinysog *(z1 
‘snynig ἽΝ -641) awoy ul edpiuq suojs η5π 
*BIONa[aG jo 59 9ΟΙΩ͂ *(SS1) awoyYy 03 
*(‘uoxjse) snyoreddiyy (οσι- ) Jarueq jo WorsIaA 2) | SaYdosojryd jo Assequiq 
‘orfasy sntaoiduias *(VhI-Og1) sneqroov uByyeuol 
*(gz1-£1z) sopeaures Ὁ 191-991) snaqeooep sepnf{ | og 
*IQI ‘awoy wo pet[edxe ‘10j}ay1 pue 114 “yD ‘jarueq Sor ‘ajdway jo uonvoyung 
*sisdaag 10 snijowed ἽΤΟΛΘΙ UvaqeuooR yy 
(691-941) 
Ὅ182 JO ,, SOUISIIO ,, soueydidy snyoojuy 
(661-461) soua1a.y, ‘su[eSq Uvaquooeyy “Lot ‘awoy ut Crerqyy ὉΠ απ γι} 
Ὁ 00) snruunnty, *(zz1-Loz) sniqdjog "gp oS1-oZ1 {(*[1qd) snjnqoysiry | ‘ggI-1Z1 ‘eM ueIUOpaoRJy PUODIG | OLI 
*(of1-o0zz) sntanoeg *(‘qryd) snjnqojsuy *(*ysty) snwajodng ‘eapn{ jo Surstua|[ayy 
*yassvuvyy jo 1ohe1g 
“SNe}S 5Π|Π91850 “snyoiesuy *(OgI 2) ΠΟ Π)ΘΒΙΞΘΙΟΟ *gbi-zgi “Ιογϑύπογ 4 ἀπι910)4 | ΟΘΙ 
πο Ὁ “ΠΟῪ UT UONLISTsa] Arenjduing 
*uINIT] 10 UOWI[Og ‘1eza0{ ueq ydasof 
“Hey *(og1-2$z) wnt ‘OUI BISY 
lft οι op, ‘sniourd -uezhg jo souvydojysuy UI aeze[es) Jo ysenbuod 061 
‘AUNLVAALIT ΝΙΙΝΊ GNV Wada *HUNLVAALIT HSIMal ‘ISVq HHL GNV AHOY Oa 


*(panus7uo2)—SATAVL IVOINOLSIH 


χν 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


¢(yyeut) 01077 
guoIg 


᾿ἸΘΟΈΪΛ SMIUIOVT Ὃ 
ο5-ΔΡ1) essueT Jo ΟἸΠ|4 


ΘΠαπθος ‘WI ἽΝ 
Ὅορις jo Joyednuy 


*(‘yyeul) SnIsopoay,y, 

"ΘΠ ΠΟΒΙΠΟΊΠΟ 

Γ18093) soproreyjesy 
“ΛΩ͵ ΌΘΠΟΤ 


"27 9ῪῸᾺΟΪΟΙΝ βηπιοῃοάν, 


pipy ἰιαϑηρη,ζ “ΟΖῚΙ 
ΘΒ) sniye29 “TJ 
*(*woo) snyidiny snjxeg 


*(Sz1) 
021.425͵) 01799 ap ‘SNI\SOP] 


Ὁ o£1) χα], snishuoiq 


(EE1)zuexvpysapuup 
‘ejoawog 5ΞΠ1ΌΠ Ὁ 
“puaody ‘suoyyy jo 5ππχορογοάν 


Ἢ οσιτοῦι “Ἰπ|4) 
“(ἔοι --9}1) ΞΠΙΠΌΠῚ ΞΘΡΟΓΙ jo snyjwueg 


*saastieyg Jo 
MOIY}I2AO pue Auuesdy, 


“spnye/ *QUI0Y UT A10} 10 JO SJOOYDG | OOI 
“erqstpiyg Jooinjdeo ystmal 
*(zor) soutaord "yy ‘erOITID 
*(OO1 
910}94 ‘HIOMpUNOIS) syoreIyeg [TX 1591, ‘(6L-gor) sneeuuef *xeTy 
901) 
“(οὅ- }1911861 91 suoNIppy "YD jeouracad ὋἋ  “erprumNy 


2So1-S1 ᾿βϑϑοπαπ[ (901-111) xem ouTYyyINSNf | O11 


*(ZoI-E11) 1M uBLaqu) 

(g£-SE1) BINS 

($11) smvy Arenjduins 
*QOUIA 


-oid Ἢ S'uoqieN ee) Oz 


*06-£g ‘syd : yooug 
*“(So1-o£1) yypnf 
ὁ (1πῈ1Ρ) 90 192 


(ΘΠ 0181.) Snurepoe[D 


“snuvorAZy JO 59] τὰ. *(gg-SS1) sniey 
‘eapn{ ut pasiow wopy 
“UIZII9L) JUNOJ] 
uo 9119} jo uorjonnseq of! 
*(€z1-££1) smey ueruordwag 


eye 


"O1I-OV1 enysoupf 


2 (320d) snjoposyy, 


‘ureds jo ysanbuod 
*(Zo1-S£1) snuvorA4zy απο 
*“(1zI-bvgI) TORI 911, 


*SNOISPISA[IOY JO WOISIOA Ὑ9 
*(oo1-OZ1) seipsq € 


‘obi 12 (218 
a(oida) opryg -ἀ6᾽ π|) “10 ϑυῃίαις ‘souspusdapur {519 [ 
*LE1-g£1 ‘smof Jo 1Π0ΔῈ} 
samyngnoy 109.. ‘(*ysIy) snuedeyy | Ul yey 01 SWOY Wo 5191)91 ovr 
‘(Sb1) aoutaoid uewoy Ἐ ‘2990I5) 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


xvi 


*(%S 
-66) sodey snipeus0s 
“{9γι9ς- 68) snydeurIsh'] 


(3919) 19399191. 
*"s9]9BIO “TIAqIS Jo “10D 
Ὑ1511) BUUSSIS *snuexojiyd 
(€€-So1) uowwsieg jo sniopoyjody 

(0S—$11) sntsuaj10 7 Ὃ 
*(9109g) Ξπιπο!α 

“SNIIVDIIPEeNd) 5ΠΙΡΠΈΙΟ 
*y oS-o11 “(*11yd) sntuopisog 

Ὃ78) SNUZTEA 


*QUIOY Ul ‘OS PUB 18 Ὑ2) 
᾿ΠΠΠΙΠΌΘΙΘΗ pe JO}ONY 
(114d) uoyexsy Jo snysonuy 
*sniuayyeg 
*('13003) snuuf9g 
‘mIULyy sniony 
381} 5πιοον 


*SENLVYALIT NILV] GNV WaaUD 


éseprAo0yg-opnasg 


*amyog 


-noy, ax "(ob-0g) 105 Ππ| 4 0 s9puLxXeTy 


*So-S6 ‘(oL-LE =sapnztiuts) yooug 
ἐ Πδταϊϑχ9 [10 19}}0'T 


*saquiog jo AANOy 
*qoR}aYS υ94ᾳ UOsWIYyIS 


ἐποίπογος Jo WOpst\y, 


{OS-OS1 ‘ov z 
‘06 Φ ‘ov I 


‘($6 pus ῬΕῚ w29M}0q) PoI-16 “syd : yoouq 


‘HUNLVUALIT HsImal 


*(panu2zju02)—SATAVL TVOINOLSIH 


159) aoutaoad Ἢ ‘ekg 


*‘JULUIWIOp SezDNppES 
*(€g-Sg) Aoemdsuos uviueuyned 


*€9-69 “11 sninqoysury ol 


"69-64 ‘omoyes 
ΔΟΡῸΣ uorodvel diesueyg 
*(zZ-£g) uredg ut 5πχογιος 


‘uep10f [0 589 
αϑιθάϊαθο 5 JopuexeTy 


(95) 
ΒΌΘΏν semjded ens 


"Α8}1 Ul eM [BIOS | 06 
*(9g-$6) snzu 
-uuf ysurede }[0A01 smof 


“ISV@] HHL GNV AKOY ‘O'a 


XV 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


‘ah jo soysdyuy 
‘snjny snueA Ἵ 
(61- 4) [15194 
'ϑῃαίς “ἃ 
5ΠΠἼ1ΕΙ snjny Ὃ1π|4} sauadisog 


ἸΠπ|4) snnxeg Ὁ ὙμΡΟΈΧΘΙΨ jo snwApiq 


*‘snjnig sniunf{ ‘JW *(, 9JoruoIY ,) 10}se_ 
“sny[ex) sntjautog 
“(asry) 5ῆΠ|94 
‘O11 A 

*(S€-9g) asnqreg “snwsporyd 
δ: 9] 


*(€¢-901) 019919 
*(bz-£g) snjnoeqig *snddiuay 


*snusqe’] snisaoq 
*O19919) snjyuIN?) “sn1IOpolje 


*(#S—Zg) snqjnyea 
*(‘13003) snioprmeyy 
(9S) τι γε: 
“242. ap “ΒΠΠ9ΙΟΠΊ 


ὉΠππη4) snoru01 
ὙἸΠ8|4) sninsiq “prising ae 
*Sz-S11 (1909) uoruues 


ΠΟΙ) sniuodwog “1, 


ὌΠ ΟΘ ΘΝ 


{or 9) 26-98 “πὶ ‘oeIQ Ἱάγις 
eyeltq jo asdAyeo0dy 


ἐὯΒΟΝ Jo Yoo 

"(Sz ax0jaq) 1160], 

ce uoreIqV 
S£-S9{ 


eIeWayIS 


¢seiquie{ pus souuef 10 yoog 


*(ob-£9) ‘11 ΞΒππθο (Ἢ 


*(gb-£9) uoutojos jo 193], esg 
ἐ 1905} 0} SUOTIPpe θα 


b-LE ‘suewi0y 
jo pre yum “eapnf jo 
sury 7891.) 91} ΡΟΙΘΗ 


‘amoY ul ἀχθιηῃ S,01]og | oF 


*peuosiod sajedynuy 
“bh ‘1esw_ 10 Jopinjy 
Χογοά 
Ἔν ἘρυσΓΟ eee) 
"gh ‘elpesieyg jo 9118 84 


6 ‘uOcIqny 5955010 JesV_ 
o$ 
*9]dw2a} srapunjd snssviz 
*(0S) soutaoid Ἢ ‘Ine 


-dns ‘xamod uewoy ἱ 
ysuiede syfoaor = ysimof i 

*(0f-69) enedoajg (bS-SS) | 
ureyug ur “(1$-gS) [neg ur reseed) 
*(4S) aoutaoad *y ‘snid45a 


*QUIOY 18 SaTIxa ystmof 
*(€9) wayesnief 5978} Aoduiog | 09 


*SUOISUASSIP YSIM[ 
UI ΘΌΙΟΣ JO 9Ό011919}19}] 


sS 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


{1-τὸ omy sap ῬΙΔΟ 
*SNOIUBUIIE) 


ὙὉ51) snuraioD ἽΝ 

‘sniadwiog sndo1], 

"(av £1-6S) Aary 
ὙΦ) “724240 

Ρ ‘OUfOd = SMIANIATA, 

‘(‘a‘v 6-ὀ ) eyessayy 


ἸΘΟΕΙΝ SNIPIWIAY 


i ioe 
‘a'v :--Ὅ 8 9 “( *youI) 
sopoyy jo sniopooyy 
Ὁ Ὁ g 
‘Joxyj1y uvuloY, 
“urvoyepy sniskuoiq 
*sayeryisdApy 


“SHUSIETULEG] SNE[OIINT 


“eqn{ 


*20810F] 


*snijiodoig 
*sntInqrL 


‘omfod smtuisy Ὃ 


*(‘130y34u1) uou0s 


(2511) sn]NoIg snroporq 
{1511} sousdemry, 


*“AUNLVAALIT NILVT GNV 558) 


*(pan037"02)—SATAVL TVOIMOLSIH 


@ ῬΟΣΘῊ Bury jo sorejyusmur0s 


ἴωοα OTTYd 


*(‘a'v 9-"9'a Of) [PITH 


‘HaNLVUALIT HsImal 


Ὁ Τ' ‘wi0q snsaf 
*y *2 “ul0g τόοϑῦος 


*(6-z1) Aueuiay αἰ snsniq 


ἜΤ 
souraoid Ἢ ‘umouON pue eneyy 
“Δι ‘sawed χε]ποος 
*mloyesnia [ 
γ8 οχάπιο Ι͵ jo δ: Πρ} πη 9} 
μᾶς S}ISIA snysnony 
‘ol 
-ἶξ ‘ealesed jo Surpimg 


"IZ "72 ‘SUIIOJaI JeIN0G 
"Sz ‘sooulA 

-oid Ἢ ‘eydydweg pue eres 
‘sapnf jo ϑιπϑια 919} 

“Zz ‘auioy ul ππ4 uoayjUEg 
᾿ΒΠΕΙΡΟΧΘῊ JO 9st, 

‘Ca'v ¥1 ‘61 ‘sny-o£) snjsn3ny 
(ΟΕ) aoutaoid Ἢ dA3q 

"IE “ἀπηον jo opjeg 


“ISVY HHL GNV 5ΝΧ ΟΣ 


ol 


xix 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


*sn[Nd19}eq 5Π19119Λ 


ὋΝ ον οὐ) snipzyg 


*(‘powl) Θϑγβιοοῦϑχ 
Ὃ 7810) ΞπιηΠοΟ( 19}Ὁ 
“eyruoyessey,y jo snddipiyg 


*MUIXEY SNIZTE A ‘uoidy 
*(‘paul) snsjag 
*sNdI[NJxxy snjnjyusy] ‘uD “ΠΟΘΙ, 
*(*paw) esnyy sniuojuy 
“πηειᾶος snruojjody 


ἐ vIsmuouoss PY ‘SnitUey 


*(‘a'v bz-"o'a PS) oqens 
*unueifouy ‘uInuOyy ἐν 


*snueAOUIq Ὁ, 
Ὁ{ππ|) τι 19ηςϑὰ91} 59)9 391194 5πΙ5ΑΌΟΙ 
“xeu0qse’] 

ssnusAyy 


85) vlupuexa,y 


gseoqvooryy £ 
Ὁ }-28) Bury “Ἱ 


*(ob-of) 1 19ηθ 8) 
*(o£-6z) snsof 


ἍΒΡΙΘΖΩ JO 09) ePystH veq efuvueTy 
*(gz-Sz) sndeg 91} 
195-91) Ἰξομά ysry seydereD 
eporazy 99.241 
‘uojwosy jo Awa[0}g 


*(‘a‘v oS-1) yooug Stu0arS 


dsssopy osrdunssy 


°(S1-9) yseud ysiy seuuy 


ἍΨ) seriyneW 
pus sepnf siqqei sopun 3joae1 ivjndog 


ul sMof jo uonndasi9g 
‘(iv 
‘pz ‘uef-LE ‘gt yorey) epNseD 
eddusy ΡΟΙ9Ὴ 
ὍΧΟΘΙΝ JO IOMOg 


jo worxgrons;) 


*(Z£-9z) ὠϑχάθο ye snusqry, 

*(9£-gz) 10je1nd0Id 9781 
uyof jo uolssi 
‘QUIOY 18 10119} JO UDIOY 
*(1€- ) snuvfag jo 1amog | ΟΖ 
“Δι ‘eisy ul ayenbyyeg 
*suUOISUSSIP ULIYIeg 
Γαν ZE ‘or 

ΠΌΣΙΣ -αν br ‘61 ‘sny) sneqry 

*(¥1) snsuad 


*(61-#1) snouts 
*souraoid Ἢ ‘eruouurg | ΟἹ 


*(61-6) 
sniumisy jo τοι 998 


*sJO[¥9Z JO JeaJop pus 
Joaar “8918: ay sepnf 
*£-9 ‘sntutingd jo snsued 
(bv ‘a'v— “ ) youensji dmg] 1 
‘a'v 
*(6€ “αὙ-’ῇΞῬ 8) sedyuy ΡΟΙΘῊ 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


“snsseg 5Π|5550 


‘eyluoyessoy,y, 10 Jayedynuy 9S-£S) | sousssq Suowe snydasof 
“ποι θα sniuuayy ‘Ob | 
*(zg-b£) snisiag Ὁ ππι1) JapuesouO (99 “6 9υ0π[--ῬΠ) ΟΙΧ9Ν 
*1oyemnooi1d ΧΙ]9 1 
Eley 5πιποάσιος *sUOISSIMI 5 [Neg “ΘΙ ΠΊΞΘΙ ΒΩ Ul sduaTNqin 1, 
ΘΠΌΘΘΒΙΘΟ ΞΠΠΟΒΙΠΟΣΙΝ ‘(o01-0S) ‘11 eddusy | ‘awoy wor peystueq sma oS 
(Lt) 
πος eqqy | snyune[g snjny 4q pepunoj uopuo’y 
ΞΠ519Ί snjuoqiog “elfiqttyD eqqV (8) snsueD 
“LY 
‘goutaoid *y ‘ureqwig ᾿ς 
Ὃ BULpESso HV 
“ky 
ΣΠΙΟΡΟΙ]9Η ‘gouraoid Ἢ Ἐ “9ΌΒΙΓΙ, 


‘guaqeipy url wstepn{ 
‘sepnay] Jo ]JOAay 
‘goutaoid "Ἢ “Ἑο (1 


“snsseq snIpyny 
*(-a'v Sg-"0'd F) θοϑαθς 


“102. po ο120827 ἽΠΠΩ Ul ΞΌΒΌΠΟΣΙ 
*‘snpunsas sniuodwog *snjnu107) "Μ22227 J DAJUOI SOTIU (PS ‘Er *19Q-1+) snipne[Dg | oF 
‘snuvipeg sniuoosy Ὁ ‘awoy url ποιάν 
esnuqeg *g£-ZE ‘uzoq snydasof 
ἸΘΙΠΟῊ 
Wo 999915) {8011} 
ὍΘΟΠΊ soinjoo, uoidy *LE Surog ΟΙϑΝ 
‘AUOLVUALIT NILV] GNV 5580 ‘UUNLVAULI] NVILSIUHD ONV Hsimaf ‘AUIdNA NVNOY AHL ‘a'v 


*(panuz;u02)—SATAVL TVOINOLSIH 


ΧΧῚ 


“τ2λφιυπμοδ᾽ 
4p “ϑιυοο ἢ ‘eA Ὁ 
(42) 


“Wi ἍΝ ‘AULD 


Ὁ αὐὰτ813) snyrporyded gy 
‘snuvinf{ ‘uojuy 


«SHOWA ,, Sueisedsa A 
‘sntqing Ὁ 


‘elessoyy snuvysdi, 
1511) sryMY sNTANTD ἽΝ 


*snqolg 5ΠΙ19]8Λ ἽΝ 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


[1] Ῥη9υ ᾽»γἤ 


ssn[NoIS ΘΠ. Π 180 


*S2pery jo xjaunjog 


‘snjxg voselyy 
*raIqIY snUO Ig 


“‘BNUjOWIIG 


“Teerq} 
-Aiq suv] snydueg τ; 


*(*pau) snajary [(οΖ + ) ye Jo 1Ι9ϑάβο 


“snluOWULy 

114) snynyy sntuosn yy 
‘(‘tud) sniyxag 
*eLIPUBXTV JO Sepluoa’T 
‘snuvijo1q 


*(‘wiuieI3) ΞΘΡΠΟΈΙΘΗ 
‘aniydueg 

*(‘pew) sapi0ysoriq 
Ὁ14) uowaraeys 


"0g + ‘smaIqayy 


*06-SL 


“sIqqel 
pus saastieyg 
jo gouBUTUIOpalg 

‘sazaf” 


‘mayne jo jedsoy fo savy, ‘snydasof 


‘(zg- 


) efrezy uaq 1ῈΖΈΘΙΗ 


*(oL +) seuQ 


“divx fog jo yg 


4 19194 1511} 


*(awoy) 
sopside uosid sjneg 


ΡῈ 10 wory 


*qoouf 94 χῈΖΈ97 


*awoy ur snydesof 


(28) 


6L ‘pafons 
“90 edwog pue πο0.1911] 
‘saqerydng uo olay 95] 


"(1g ‘€1 γάος-62 ‘€z aunf) sniry 


*sWOY ὉΠ snyajoIdq 


*(og—-oZ) γππ|4 WnassojoD 
ΡΟ ΘΟ πο ΠΟ, 
᾿ϑοῦυιλοια oyuiedas ‘eopn[ 


(ZL) sr 
-topn[snsz7 Sweisedsa A 
‘QUIOY WL Paystueq Sd10}S 
*papunoj sijodvan ΒΙΔῸ 


*(69 12) Iseq Ul ΟΙΘΝ as|ey 
*wlayesniaf yo 9.1Π| 
-deo puv oS015 “91 
-59184 Ul I@M JO YvoIqGQING 
‘o01d '5Π107:1 5Π|559.) 
ἹΠΊΜΩ 
Ul ἘΘΟΙΡΈΟΩ JO }]ΟΛΘῚ 
"ΒΒ Π51117) jo 
uonndesied ‘auoy jo Suruing ‘bg 
09 “2 
‘p ‘woesniof jo soure[ 
*10yeInI0I1d snjsa,J 
saasuvyg suiof snydasof 


of 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


xxii 


“(S11 nL@ZOAxs} 
"21.0251}7 ‘SUIT, *(ystydos) snasy | -001) Jedsoy yyno onNarosseyy jo UISUO 
*SNdde[ WY SN[NIIS ‘lapueusyy Ἐἴπαν 964 ἘΠΟΞΠΉ 


Ὄρααν ai «ce 


srodsy ΘΠ] ‘sSnyJULIOD) ὙΟΡΈΖ 96 1ΌΖΈΘΙΉ 
ἋΟΟΙ “eruue [ 
“(96 ) sdunuMm soyny ye ἽΙ jayewesg 
- 26) τ οϑι δὴ ‘snyoey, 96 "2 ‘WOY ‘WATD 
ὍΠΟ [10 asddjeoody 91, 
+ £6 ““2225::27 uerpyund *(oz1-gh) yore n[g ‘eppdT 18 ΒΟ ΒΛ 96 1ΒΖΈΘΙΉ 
*yeuoan [ 68 *(€6-£6) sazzendyup ‘snydasof 
“ἜΠ1915 snyuuny ‘syjodoxIN ye snjoyoIdq | "19ηζαΞ91α ay} uyof “(οὐ +2) 
pexy uouzd ΤῸ 
*(101-£g) ‘erumef jo pouds 
vpuupsésigy “ΤἘΠΧΌῚΝ *BuIAUWIS JO Se}OHIN esvipsy + 
*(OOI 910794) 
*snt}Z1g sniuideg SM2IQ2 } ‘908 Jadsoy 
‘snurjuoig ‘{ *}x9S Ὁ 1511) seteqry jo snysnf 
rosso «6 
*sHyNyy] SNIUTdIO A ‘uvueysof “ 
“snolyei] SNITIS *(00I-0Z) tesy uaq Iqqry 
“snonsny 5Π16Ὁ “erume [ 
‘snxsnig 01d 8 YOOYSS οἰ] 
*AUNLVUALIT NILV] GNV MHAUD ‘HUNLVUALIYT NVILSIUHD GNV HSIMal 


*(panu2zju02)—SATAVL IVOINOLSIH 


‘(211 ‘6 ‘Sny-g6 ‘ue{) uefery | ΟΟΙ 


(96 ‘Sz ‘uef—96 ‘ydag) earon 
*SUBI}SIIYD JO UOT]NOASIAg 
ῬΘ 


‘smoy wor poljedxe sraydosoiyg 


99) Saurexy Ie[NI2Eg | 06 
‘suensuyD pure smof 
spremoy Aowyod ϑαϑλος 
‘sajeiydny uo ΟΥΘΝ 9510 


‘smidurerg) suoyy 18 “pated Jo 382} 
(88) ney ur yduinny s.uenimog 


οοΙ οὐ) auioy ut snydasof 
(995-92) ureyug ul ejoousy 
(96 ‘g1 idag-1g “ydag) uenm0g | og 


‘auld NVKOY 521, ‘a'v 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


‘snuviuUy 

ὍΞ πῇ snosug snuajoqef 
*sminvds 191, Ὃ 

“22. “2:11 ‘sntuojens 


ΘΠΠΘΙΟΘΝ SNOSUg 


"ΒΠΙΠ5ΛῈ 


“(2411 
—SI1) syvuup ‘snyoey 
"sueIsuy) 
uo uefery, yum ‘puods 
-aui00 s Aug ‘11-11! 


1966) SNIARL 
5ΠΙΟ].1 5ΞΠΘ 


*SnINV|A, ἽἼ[|919 1, 
“.,.22227 ‘1asunoX Aug 


*aINyeIIIT] 
aouessteUusy 


"AD jo 
*(,eoruoryD,) uosaryq 


*(‘uimie13) οὐλὰς 


᾿Β9Ί9 10 
Βηχοροοάν 


Hed 
SOT OSOTNT 
*sopoumlosayy 


*ysosk1yD OI 


-(‘snut) 
sapusuy 
*snueI[ yy 


snuenuind 


BNYOIeHIN 


‘(ryd) snaney, “180 


sayeryodiey) 416-1 “Δ 10 “TIAQIS 


poet 
-[Iseq 10 uos “ΟΡΙΞ] 


*(o£ 1-001) 
19794 jo Suryovelg 


giqooe{ wintjadueaajo1g 


"yOonUY UT Ἰπαογος 


“eyost|y 


194 joewys, Ἃ 


ἐ(1.0 Jo worssaa) epinby 


“(pyre 
-LALZQ,.)  elupue 
SxS Ver ἘΠῚ Sop rises 


ZAATaM J, 91} 
jo jadsos o1jtu0Iiqg 


*snulud NyeS 
᾿Ξ} |40 
*“SUBIUOUIS 


*(O€1 910194) 
suenddsq jo jadsoy 


ἋΟΖΙ 2) uoydiey, Ἢ 
Ὁ 048) snyeapend 
*(oS$ 1-001) gyoepiq 
‘S11 ‘uJog snzual] 
*drexAjog jo apsidq 


"SNIJeUB] JO 519}}91 


¢joquAs uewoy 


ἼΠΘΘΒΈΝ *(¢) rex] JO Yoo 
*(op-ggiI 11-19) wles] orsusosw 


*Ayarjoe Are 
-19}1] N1SOUS Jo 951} 


*($11-06) 
sopysido [e10\seg 
‘uyof jo 91η5149 5 


(Zor) 


‘wlog SnULIOL ἢ 


“SzI ‘2 ‘u10q 
‘snsoydq jo soyeryAjog 


3 
—OZI “βοῦς pUB 5101 YUMA IEA 


*ydiosoy S.uelIpepy 
*QzI-EZI ‘suayjY Ul ὈΒΙΡΒΗ 
ΟΖΙ 
“611 “ΠΩ Ul ὈΒΠΡΒΗ 


ἽΙΟΛΘΩ ΘιΠΊ59 84 Jo smof 


(βει 

for ἀἅππ[-Ζ11 ‘3ny) ueupepy 

1892 

-Χϑ 159318}] 18 ondwmq uewoy 
‘oqo ᾿“ϑχάζο 


9910) Ul 110λϑὰ smof 


ἜΠῚ ‘uvfery jo uumnjos ΟἿΣ 


ποσυιίς jo mopr4} IEP | 


‘(go1) wyear uvayeqeyy * | 
‘(QOI-101) eioeq jo ysanbuo7 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


ΧΧΙΥ͂ 


ssnuvipnf 5Π1λ]Ὲς 


ἃ. 5909 WNIISIAIEg ,, 


ὁ (. stjeuoweur 


1941,)  suyjeduy Ἵ 


Ὁ ΌΟΙ ‘UI0D ἽΝ 

*( “2 
ς 421-571) snyjay sniny 
‘sntuodwog snjxag 


ssueurjody “ding Ὃ 


*snjoosfqy sniuojjody 
SI}JIPIS SNIPE J] 
*snuisuo'y snissed 

“αὐτάν 
“ΘΠΙΙΊΘΌΙΘΩ 


*snonyV ΞΘΡΟΙΘΗ 


"UBILIY 

*sn[oo01g 

{||} snur0ae,y 
*sniqouaz 

*ampngnoy 169. “ΘῈ Πα ΔΗ 


ὍΙΠΠ 4 Sntuusio yy 


"5ΠΙΟΡΙ 9}. 0 


"HUNLVAALIT ΝΙΙΥΊ αΝΥ Waa) 


‘uouvd 

‘WOY ulueneE IN 5, ἸΟΤΟΙΈ ΙΝ 

{ἀἀπ100)ὴ ΠΟΘ] ἡ Β19Ὲ] 

‘snxwa[nig (4) 193g ‘da puosas 

(SPI 2) Ἐ194 Jo OSU 
*(2oS1 a10jaq) 19jag ‘ody 


*JUIUII|D Z 
‘qWOY Ul ΠΟΙΌΣ «‘sepysuyjoAdojody 

ox) 
snjusoiq 5160 

‘satpimoy “554 
“dda :awoy ut (2) ποτ 

OpieD puesnurjusye A -wsodxgy  seideg 
(4 ysimol) yrnavg fo spsoyy fo 159y 
‘(Jo uotsiaauod) snsayd gy ur unsn{ 

*(091 a10;9q) 29090f Ὁ SE1-S6) 


unizasUuvazIZ0AT θαι Ἃ Jo yeaq 
ΦΟΞῚ 4 ‘seurdzy 
*(1£1) enysof 
“ΔΟ]θ. «71 S12090vdn]T Iqquy jo yYyeaq 
(4081) seqeuieg *ysidq 


“AUNLVAALIT NVILSIXUHD UNV Hsimaf 


*"(panu2;uo2)—SATAVL TVOINOLSIH 


*rg1—Lb1 ‘juadar-09 snipoiny ἽΝ 
‘SPI 
“sojtyd 0} payiaau0d snijainy “jy 


“(SS1-ob1) Ἢ “Yysiq ‘stg 
"γι ‘undeq “9ΡΆ10 
0} YOY “uojUY jo [TBA 


oF 
ὍΟΡΙ 
-9£1) “Y βιᾳ “βπυισίῃ 
“(191 “ὁ 
yoreyy—gf1 ‘or Aqn{) sntg sniuojuy 
*"wiajesniaf “ysiq ‘snoreyy 
ὍΞΙ ‘eurpoudes ἘΠΉ 
*€£1 ‘snounuy jo stsoayjody 
‘eapn{ ur pay~poolg 
*SE1-z£1 ‘equyoy 
“eg jo uordasnsuy 
‘JOLT Swayes 
-nief spingel uvupepy 
*(P£1-6z1) ueLpeTZy 30 ἀπο) puosas | of1 


‘aUldNY NVNOY FHL 


Χχν 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


*(aqluOlIeP-HuUe) vudzIOy 10 dyiyg 
“pinila 
*BJOAXS Ὃ Ὃ ‘snypamny ‘WW | -vouy, ‘snddisasozy *SBIODBUIUTY 
(41 AZ Ἦ 
‘snueiddg | ‘snq) ὁ Moye]y UO ἵπαιοο ‘snyoeUUTLS 
“(quo yy) “astda 
ΞΠΌΒΙΡΟΙΘΗ͂ | Ἅ780 SuOstwWaYyy Ὁ 061—-09g1) OTA 
‘sapenty jo Adsojody 


51Π8196011 ὍΠΟΥ) Ὁ 9292) 
‘mmeyy 8919 1, snutuojuy | snuvqiq) = SNIJa}SY_ ἘΠΌΙΧΟΩ Jo 5πιβάποις 
(O61 910194) wyyayZ pun nny fo soy 
avon] Ἢ snuvisses snipnf ὃ [Md f0 sv 
*(ayqeIOU-Nue) snuvsny, ὁ ‘woz ‘maa 

5951 
-7891) sous oydog ὍὉΟΙ ‘2 ‘uyof fo SP 
<“Saynyysuy , ‘snred) “Sopysiry 5ΠΠῊ7 

*(oL1-O£1) oystry jo ,, andojeiq ,, 

ὙΦ, yjta 
*sniquos[n yy ‘USIURJUOY 10 951} sudoypraq = sus 

*einep (γιὰ) “pion ὉΠ OgI 
-ey jo smioinddy ‘ony ἘΠΠΟΡΘΌΌΙΝ jo snueedjog | -barfoug ‘snewajoig -o$1) snddtsasa fy 

*soyslinoy édiey 
‘snoijsny sniun{ sayeryodieg 10 jeg -AJOg Jo Wops1Ayey 
‘(obi raye) yonreg soody "x5 

Ὁ ‘poul)snuerjainy snija2a *(‘uier3) onjseeydoyy 4 19794 jo jadsoxy 

Ὁ 2do70gp s.unsn [ 

*(‘;euur) *sayeryodie) *S02D45) 
SNULIUIDIT sniuvixy ‘snxuis[o1g 9. jo uos ‘souvydidq po osc ‘Sueney 


‘sni}aV “SUBISODIBIA 


(οφι--291) τὰμθαι ΟΟ 1. WIM SIvAA 


ἜΠΗΧΈΕΩ jo ysonbuo7) 


ὍΟΙ Sa0uaTNSeg 
*unsnf jo moprAqeyy 
(ULI 
-991) auIOY “Ysiq “19305 


‘(ogi SZ1 yore 
-191 “2 yoreyy) snteainy snoieyy 
‘191 
‘Quijsa[e@q Ul UOIN[OAIY 


"(991 
-ος 1) Ἢ “Ysiq ‘snjoo1uy 


‘amoy ut snddisasazy 


‘(091 
-o$1) awoYy ul snewuaay 


"qiuLOD “ysiq ‘snug 


οδι 


ΟΘΙ 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


xxvi 


(061 2) snourduq snjxog 
*("Joswyore) χα θα 


“souodouuleyy 


“SMNLVABLIT NILV] GNV ὙΠΠᾺ 0) 


aK] JO snuIxey 


‘wpouedy jo sniuswnyy 
“snyjoog 


οοζ-οξ 1) υ9150 
*snyotudiyg 


"ποχάτο! ν᾽ 


“seluvsneg 
*SNRUI[0}g 


Ὥοβι-Ζ21) sohpy skguyy, ‘snsjap 


“HHOLVUALIT NILV]T GNV 5550) 


($61 5149) snsoydg jo 59) ΝΆ 04 
‘uoueD ULIIO}EINW 
"EUpUeXe|Y 10 γι901910 


ἐβυῦμο ἢ ᾿Αβαϑαοσηθοῦ [eyoseg 
‘sniuojjody jo 5)0 ν᾽ 


“SUN LVAALIT NVILSIYHD 


2(LO Jo uorsi2a) uonoposy y, 
“snyiyd 
-Osy], “ΠΕ [eoidojoay) ur 9M 751 


*sra0mdaanp (‘2 ozz 
Sonojhoyyno'saijady —o9g1) ὈΠΡῚΠ|Π119 1, 
"ἜΠΡΌΒΧΟΙΨ Ul snuajueg 
*(061-0g1) 
“9.027 “app ‘snxuar] 
*SayI4ny) 9242211. puv suokT fo 2)2Σ {Ὁ 
(1099 
‘uopoyy uorsi9a) 5πιῃοθαιαίς 
‘aytuoysnsp pun ‘snjAdog ‘sngavp fo sap 
(2) ΧΙ9.1 snronuryy 
“ΘΠΊΘΘΡΟΤΑΙ 2 τον 
*(qstuvjuoy-nue) sipodeserzy jo sureurjjody 


‘AYOLVUALIT NVIISIMHD GNV HsIMaf 


t 
(£61) xeuqueg 
(€1z-061) 
5Π|9. “ysiq ‘snssioreyy 061 
‘ISVq HHL GNV aKOY ‘a‘v 


(661 
631) amy “ystq ‘10]91A, 
ΟῚ ‘u10q uaduQ 


‘sniuojjody jo wopidqiepy 
ὍΒΙ “IID jo sXe 
*(z61 
*1 ‘uef-ogi ‘61 youeyy) snpomuos | ogi 
*suod’T UI SNwUeIT 


*(suod’T) . 
snuiyjog jo τπορχλ] 
-1eul “(NES Ul UOT]NOaSIOg 
*(6g1-S 1) 


‘stusyyne[q 


66 


‘auldNY NVWOY AHL ‘a'v 


*(panuzjuo2)—SATAVL TVWOIMOLSIH 


ΧΧΥ!] 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


Ὁ Shz-Siz) snjyensoprtyg 


*seoo"S SNIuOWWYy 


*(20eIOPT 

wo ‘yoyss) o1Xydi0g 
“(98g 15) aera 

ὍΣΟΥ 

‘Qsunf) υτιά!ῃ 


‘pruasaudy ‘uerdddQ-opnasg 
“sniqieey sauosoiq 
snayjisoq-opnesg 
“Qsunf) ueruideg 


"91Π1819}1} UBT pus ὝΩ Jo Avoaq 
(aspinf) snjeaysi[[eD 


*(*g O€z-og1) sneusyy 


‘sisuaistporydy "ΘΙ 


*“(obz-SS1) snisse> o1q 


‘snuvouyy jo mipodLoaody 
‘uMDIXDAT SNS4INpY “ἍΡ1ΠΠ1)19 1, 


*(¢amoy 28) paystqnd resaxTy Jo Yoo 


gsuvaorpory 03 ansidq 


‘upjngoIs po “Uet[NII8 1, 


*(41z-O0z) Sn] {Og pue sntey jo ΘΠ δος, 


*(Z1z-11z) vIn ap pure vu0L09 ap “ἊΈΠΠΠΊ19 1, 
*(astuejuoyy) snp 7014 *snyA4joddipy 
‘BIIPULXITY 18 απο 
γον 08) sniey = *sor/cnonig “ΒΘΙΌΧΘΗ 
‘snuvouyy snynf snyxag 
*(O1Z *(O1z 
-Ogi) seuedowsszy -007) «4222. fo spp 
*ysIULJUOPL SUIN} ULTT[NIIA TL 
*(‘quoy-Mue) sntuojjody 
"Σ2202412172,7 22 VNZGsIT OSSDT 
‘(002 "2) gysazanyg Ὁ 60z-z61) 
-ay-pp uoyasuvag Yyoruy jo uordeiag 
(61) ASojogp suey[nyey, 
*(2.uspuodser109) elupuexaly jo sniujeulaq 
, BSSOpy 
jo av3qy pue snsef jo souapuodsai05, 
“essopy UISouvsopleg 


*(ofz 
-72z) Ἢ “Yysiq ‘snueqi¢ 
‘(zzz 
-£1z) Ἃ 514 “βῃηχη 9 
‘(zzz ‘Ol {910}γ-.917} snypeqese,q 


ove 


*(ofz-L1z) 


onuy “ysiq ‘snjaryd 
*(oSz-£1z) 
‘sniof ‘ysiq ‘1apuexely 


*(L1z-11z) yoon 


“uy δια ‘sepeidaposy 
“elLIpus 
“xopy ul wornnoasiag 


“(Liz ‘g pudy-11z) eppeoereD | O17 


*11z-goz “πος ut sudredwes 


‘eLIPUeXeTY 18 seo" snTuOMUlY 
*SUBIISLIY) JO UOTINIISIIg 
*(£1z-661) 
UM ‘Ysiq. § ‘snurAydoz 
“epnf iqqey 
(S61) umop 
Χ89161Π0 uUvIyWeT 
*(11z-£61) snsaaag “yWdag 


ynd 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


ote 


XXV1U 


(20d) snaerpommios 
*(asunf) 
SnUnsepoyy sntuussapy 


ESNUIxe snueyy 


*(‘uo1yo) 
2/01Du 3p ap ‘snULIOSUaZ) 


*(ysunf) snjneg snynf 


*SNIDAVS snotuowUIES Ὁ 


‘(Aud 


yo eurojyids) ~=—s snutjos 


*(oLz-Soz) snunolg 


*UISIUO}Z[q-OPN JO OSTXY 


Ι ΒΒ.) 1ΊΞΟΙΠΙ 4 


ἐ( 191.) soursdy 


ἝῬΒΩΙΝΜΉΙ1ΠΙ ΝΙΙΥΊ αΑΝΥῪ 558 


*(oSz 2) snja0ny 
*adeyzieZ jo doysiq “(gSz—o1z) ueidk5 
*MAYILIY UO ‘wWWOD 
OOP Y PLY +-UIZBUO 
*(Sbz (4) ejdexazy 
samsoidohuyyy soxhayz (ydA43q) sodany 


“UBIJZAON 


Ὁ z£z) Jooyos 
[800] jo peay ‘eupuexa;y jo sniskuoig 


ἐ(τξξ rsye) τρεώσῳ 7 fo sop 
*BaIeSLD) JO ULIIUITT 


(2) arnjzusSain op dq “warty “pnasg 


Ὁ bez-gIz) eNsog jo Ξῃ 195 


‘AUNLVUALIT NVIISINHD 


"(p2nut7H02)—SATAVL IVOINOLSIH 


- 


‘somes χεποῦς 
*(¥9z-Lbz) eupue 
“xaTV “ysiq ‘snisXuorq 


*SUOISEAUL UBLeqieg 
*(oSz-obz) 


yoonuy ‘ysiq ‘se[dqeg oz 
‘(ghz-gtz) ‘qery diya 
*(oSz-9£z) 
ΘΟ “Yysiq ‘snuriqe,y 
*(gfz-SEz) 
ΘΟ “YysiIq ‘snisjUuy 
‘(gfz-SEz) xelyy, ΧΕΙΝ 
*(2¥z-1£z) eupue 
“XIV Ὃδ|4 § ‘Se[PIOFY 
(δες 
τοῦ) Ἃ “Yysiq ᾿βπυθηθος 
(ονς-οξ τ) 
YWonuy δια ‘snuiqeZ ofz 
‘ord 
ὌΠ ‘uBIsIag jo 9511 
“ΘΙ ΠΏ. 10 MOIYNVIZAG 
(δες “61 σι ]γ-2 22) βπχϑαθς ἼΟΙΥ 
ΜΟΥ FHL αΝΥ̓ AMOY "ΑὙ 


= ! 


ΧΧΙΧ 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


so0f-££z ‘A1Aydi0g 


*€Lz-ozz ‘snursuo0’] 


ὋΟΖ 12 “[1911) snuvIOnUI;y 


“ὌΕΙΡΟΙΘΗ 


*oSz “ 
5πΠ|}) φΦηρι00 5πιαπῇ 


 οοζΖ ‘eyesoules jo [neg 


"(oof 
-0SZ) φευζος stistq 


‘aIKJ, Ul UIZIIO Jo Yea 


“2,142 22 
sovpn{ ‘apo ung *(1a0d) 
-2asojogo πριώαῦ SNUBIPOWWO) 
(155) 
eseipsy 5 sesfop ap ‘ueiddy 


Ὁ oLz-£1z) sndimyeuneyy A103015) 


{z9z-oz) vupue 


τα “ysiq ‘snwixeyy 

ἘΠ PUL 999015) 99ΈΛΈΙ 5101) 
Ἐπ qovef 
-Ἐ71}8 ὉΠ ΠΠΒΝ ΟΝ 


BONO WV eeu ed cen 

‘amioy ut Ardydiog 
(392 

-6Sz) Ἃ 14 ‘snisduoIg 
“suBLIeq 

-1eq Aq padeavi 999019 

"ΠΟΙ]Β19101 JO JIIP| 

"speolul uvleqieg 

ΠΟΣῚ 18 VdUaTIISAg 


Oz 


τ. 
γε ἱ 
(€Sz 
“(€Sz Aew-1Sz ‘uins) { snuvisnjoA 


sni[e+) 


"sUBI}SIIYD JO UOTINIaSIag 
τς so 19WIWINS-6Hbz) sniId9aq 
‘o$z ‘ondwuigq speaut syjoy 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


ΧΧΥ 


ὍΠΙΟ 5Π||96 911, "(z1£-oof) eupuexaty Jo “ysiq ‘snug | 90) east Jo Tune} oof 
"eins jo Awapeoe 


*SNUIPIOWIe esniyodsofy | JO peay ‘vunzy uoq “ἃ 
*(¥o£—96z) 
‘snyedury Ἵ “(δος pardyreut) vareseea jo snptydwueg | Ἢ “YsIq «= snur][a07e | 
‘wayesniaf jo 1apuexa|y 
ssnurpoydes snrynf *(oof-zgz) vupuerxayy 10 seuooyy, ΠΊΕ jo aouapuedapuy 06z 
snuvor[ey) ΘΠ ΒΟ] Λ, ἜΠΡΌΒΧΘΙΨ Jo 5Π|914 
*(SoE 
yorep—bgz “Δι 1495) uenepoiq 
*(96z 
"Ῥ»71228 2212. ‘SNUISIUI9 NT ΧΊ jo ‘pe “(z1£ *p) eyesoures jo uviony | -fgz) “y “Yysiq ‘snieD 
; *sniopolje yy uUeLIDUIN NY 
‘snuevyiedg = *snuetuind sapysuy (11 *p) sndur4[O jo βπιρο οι 91. "(gz "γἸάος-ζϑ 90) snuLeD 
snied | 0gz 
“meg 
ésniuindjed “skilAh39 9 BUpUexe|Y Jo snysousoayy, | ur usreduied ynyssaoong 
{τἀὰ18) sneeuty, “(zgz—glz judy) snqorg 
‘(€gz—S Lz) 


Ἢ ‘ysiq § ‘snueiyodqng 
(asdAeoody ‘wuioo) nevyeg jo Ξπυμογοιλ | (942 pudy-Sdz ‘Sz ‘ydag) snyoey 
*UDIOI S.BIQOUITZ 
(911) Χορ ΒΘ] (S$/z-olz) uetpiny | olz 
"(J 89z) veoIpor’T S10) 10 269,96 
eseipsy 9 jo “Yysiq ‘snyoyeuy | ‘(oz udy—goz “ {9101} SnIpneT 


*"HUNLVUALIT NILV]T GNV 5850 "AUNLVAALIT NVILSIXMHD “HUIGNG NVMOY AHL ‘av 


a Se 


*"(panuzju02)—SATAVL TVOINOLSIN 


ΧΧΧῚ 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


*(qa0d | 


uvnsuyD) snoucanf ‘urd 6] (ὦ UOISIOA DIPIYES 

(SSE- ) vajoerazy Jo a10pooyy, 

"DISNEN PY 
w240j8277 JO uonea[dwod ‘eLIpUeXeTY 20 514 ‘snIseueyyy 
(6ςς-- ) esamq jo sniqasnq 

“9107 
τΈΧΘΊΠ ὉΠῚΘΓῚ JO 1ὉΛΙΔΘῚ “(PzE 2) ΔμΟ2 577 2002125252229 7 “sniqasngy 
‘sniuoujydy *(2) mnsojnsassagd 571922.407}7 aq 


(9158) 29424 suolpuLDIUT ap ‘suIseUueyY 


‘sniuuey 5ΠΠΙΙΙΘ *(gz£-£1€) epuexely jo “ysiq ‘1apurxe[y 


guorsiaa odo9 


‘snipudwey sniyq7 (ογξ- οἱ ξ) ἘΘΟΙΡΟΘΊ Jo snjopoay, y, 
ἈΞ ΘΜ) 

Ὁ o£ €-ogz) snyoyqury | ἀθηθα! 911,, ‘(obf-o9z) πη. 8108 

(6ξξ--ὀ } vareseesd jo sniqasny 
(ZE€-  ) yoon 2210) 1(7 


*snosido, -uy jo sniyjyejsnq ‘yaevuvpp - opnesg 


᾿βϑαπάμος 


&q wuononijsep Ροηάιτιι9}1 


*snyny jo sniusuny jo suvwoy 


“Σ24Ο125Λ7 “apo ‘sniqouly 


*ydA3q τὰ Auojuy ᾿ς 
‘QUI}S2[eq 0} JISIA S ἘΠΙ9]9}1 UsanQy 


*(Sz£) jrounog auac1n 
‘gz ‘papunoy 9] οι 8500) 
Ῥ:ξ “τοιϑάαιϑ “ΘΠ 15 00) 
“sntuO 
-yoeg Jepun ‘uisiorse 
ΌΟΙΝ uenddsq jo osny 
‘usieduivs uvuIay 5,901) 85 00) 


*(g€€-b1€) 
‘WM ‘ysIq “1 αϑγθϑλΊχάς 
*ezoyeyy 18 “(τος 
—o0gz) eqey 4 ydasof Ἢ 
"CIE ‘ueyapoiq jo Π]Έ964 


‘(z1£) urzryy Jo γ51005 


*UOT}219]0} JO JDIpa 5Π11918: 


‘eyIpaquing jo 
Auiapeoe jo pray ‘(ort 
-olz) wueuleN ueq Ἃ 


‘auMoy 18 Jo1adwe ‘snijuexeyy 


*suIdaq 
suBIsiy) jo uonndoasieg 


off 


ozt 


οιξ 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


‘unjny 10 snioney | 


(ὁξ- ) 
‘MsI¥] 10 ΞΒΠΙΟΡΟΙΩ valeseQ jo [5864 | ‘gS ‘yoonuy jo ποῦποῦ 
‘sniueydidg 
*(o1b-gvE 
ροὰ 5110} snijuepnig {ξ2ξ-ὀὀ } snisvueyyy ‘suoy}y 18 ππηπ 
ἼΟΣΟΙΛ SNI[QINW snjx9S *(oL£-0f ) srarjoI0g jo ΑΔΒ 1} 
ἜΠΙΘΙΠΗ (οδξ--ὀ } vr}sog jo 5811, "ESE ‘sayy a 
“1S€ ‘wintuig jo [1Iouno0s 
"SnUSIAY *SnIjSIWOY T, (995--ὀ } ἘΘΙΈΞ55 jo sniovoy ‘1o1odwa “5π 50.)  Οδξ 
(91H ογαι 
(ξ6ς-Ψ 8) smueqry | “(PSE)uroqounsnsny 914716 jo “1}} ΞΒΙΠΩ 
“(LbE) 
1104 wojsoskiyd 6bE‘wayesnisf 6“ 
“snyeuog 5ΠΠΉΣ (€LE-) snakg wovsiydy “ΡῈ ‘eoipregSS 
SPE ‘yoonuy jopiounosd 
“SNUIO}V “WILT ‘sayzmogy “(ydkSq) snuvseyy | *seoyuoes used siiqiyoid sueysu0s | 
‘(6gf-_) 
*(*}010) snjoux\suy ‘log ewolaf uszuvIZeN Seaasin “QUIJURISUOD Jo YJvep pus ieajoq ονξ 
| 
Ϊ 
Ὑ258 Ϊ 
*SNISOINO1g Ὁ 1090 τῃχπο}} N=snonreurg xapog | -ZEE) Ἢ *ysiq “1 snynf 
*snUeLIOgI Ι, ὋὉ 7.190 τῃ1Π0}} g =snuedy¥A ΧΘΡΟΟ off ‘snuy jo yiveq 
ΠῚ snjersopiug “(LEE 
‘snddixeq -9f££) Ἢ “Ysiq “Ἴ snore 
‘AUNLVUBLIT NILV] GNV Wada ‘HUNALVYALIT NVIISIYHD ‘auldNq NVWOY BL | “av 


(pont2;00?)—SATAVL TWOINOLSIH 


ΧΧΧΙ)}] 


HISTORICAL TABLES 


(300d 
uERsuy))  sniuosny 

*(Ja0d 
*SYD) BION Jo snurneg 


"SnyNy snjxoG 


*snidoiynq 


«ὅεν- ) ensonsdow jo s10pooqy, 

(6ξ--ὀ ) uel jo asorquiy 

(g6£-  ) snjuog jo sniuseaq 

*“(S6€-_) esskyy Jo Atosa14) 

(S6£-  ) eupuexely jo snwApiq 

*(Z6£-g1£) sinoy jo unre 

*(aw0yy ‘Pet 088 τ) 

*(*1Z0901x9]) sntyoAsazy |—-9Q£) ,Josvisoiquy, waresniof jo [uD 

"bof “ἘΘΟΙΡΟΒΊ Jo [Iounod 


ὌΟΘΙΙ, | (ξ6ξ--ὀ }) ἘΘΟΙΡΟΘΊ jo snueurjjody 


‘(PLE-Po£) suateA pue uviunueye A 


*(€o£) διδοῖ 


‘MWY Ul ϑυμοιο 


-31 uvded ayy 


*uOT]0B 
*(€gf-19£) ueryn{ 


Sond 


| 
Ϊ 


oof 


aA. . 


4CL.. 


DcB.. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


—~_—— 


The Apostolic Age, History οἵ : 

Weizsacker’s das apostolische Zettalter® (1902, Eng 
tr. of second edition, 1894). 

A. C. McGiffert (Internat. Theol. Library, 1897). 

J. V. Bartlet (in ‘ Eras of Christian Church,’ 1900). 

J. H. Ropes, Zhe <Afostolic Age in the Light o; 
Modern Criticism (1906). 

Harnack and Preuschen, Geschichte der altchristlichen 
Litteratur bis Eusebius. i. Die Ueberlieferung una 
der Bestand (1893) ; ii. Die Chronologie (1 = 1897, 
2 = 1904). 

Ehrhard’s aie altchristliche Litteratur u. shre Erfor- 
schung sett 18So (part i. 1894). 

The American Journal of Theology (Chicago). 

Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft (Berlin, ed. Dieterich 
and Achelis). 

Bettrage cur Forderung christl. Theologie (ed. Schlatter). 

Schenkel’s Bzbel- Lexicon. 

Bulletin de Litt. ecclésiastique (Paris). 

Harnack’s Beitrage zur Einletiung in das NT (i. Lukas 
der Arzt, 1906, Eng. tr. 1907; ii. Spriiche u. Reden 
Jesu, 1907, Eng. tr. 1908 ; 11], ἷζε Apgeschichte, 1908, 
Eng. tr. 1909). 

Biblische Zeitschrift. 

The Century Bible (London, Eng. text and notes). 

The Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and 
Colleges. 

W. Briickner, die chronolog. Rethenfolge in welcher dte 
Briefe des NT verfasst sind (1890). 

The Church Quarterly Review. 

Sir W. M. Ramsay, Zhe Church in the Roman Empire® 
(1904). 

Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (1898-1904). 

Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. 

Vigoroux’s Dictionnaire de la Bible (Paris). 

Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography (1877-1887). 

ΧΧΧΥ͂ 


Xxxvi 
DCG.. . . 


Diat. e e e 


EB. e e e 
EBi, Φ e ® 
EGT.. δι ἐδ 


Einf. . ὃ Ο 


Einl.or INT. . 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (1906- 
1908). 

E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica (London, A. and C. Black) : 

(i.) Clue, A Guide through Greek to Hebrew 
Scripture. (§§ 1-272); (ii.) The Corrections of Mark 
adopted by Matthew and Luke (§§ 273-552); (iii.) 
From Letter to Spirit (88 553-1149) ; (iv.) Paradosis 
(88 1150-1435) ; (v.) Johannine Vocabulary (§§ 1436- 
1885) ; (vi.) Johannine Grammar (§§ 1886-2799) ; 
(vii.) Motes on NT Criticism (§§ 2800-2999) ; (viii.) 
The Son of Man (§§ 3000-3635). 

The Encyclopaedia Britannica (small superior numbers 
denote the edition). 

The Encyclopaedia Biblica (London, 1899-1903; ed. J. 
S. Black and T. K. Cheyne). 

The Expositor’s Greek Testament (ed. Sir W. R. Nicoll, 
1897-1910). 

Nestle’s Zinfiihrung in das Griechische NT? (1899, 
Eng. tr. under title, ‘An Introduction to the 
Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament’), 

R. Simon’s Histoire critique du texte du NT (Rotter- 
dam, 1689f.)*, HWestocve critique des versions du NT 
(1690), and Nouvelles observations sur le texte et 
les versions du NT (Paris, 1695);1 J. W. Rum- 
peus, Commentatio critica in libros NT (1757); 
J. Ὁ. Michaelis, Zinlettung in die gottl. Schriften 
des neuen Bundes* (1788 ; Eng. tr. by Marsh, 1793, 
Fr. tr. by Cheneviére, 1822) ; A. Hanlein, Handbuch 
α΄. Einl, in die Schriften des NT* (Erlangen, 1801- 
1809); J. G. Eichhorn, Zin/. in das NT (1804- 
1827)*; J. E. C. Schmidt, Histor¢sch-krit. Einl. in’s 
NT? (Giessen, 1818); L. Bertholdt, Azstorisch-krit. 
Einleit. in simmtliche kanon. u. apokry. Schriften 
des A.u. N. T. (1813-1819); H. E. F. Guericke’s 
Bettrige zur Einl. in das NT (Halle, 1828 f., against 
de Wette) ;? A. B. Feilmoser, Zin/. in die Biicher des 
seucn Bundes fiir die offentlichen Vorlesungen 


1The Protestant reply to Simon was J. H. Mai’s Axamen Historia 
Critica N. T. a R. Simone Vulgate (1694) rather than the Lutheran 
Pritius’ /ntroductio in lectionem NT (1704, etc.); the Roman Catholic, 
Kleuker’s Untersuchungen der Griinde fiir die Echthett u. Glaubwiirdighett 
der schriftlichen Urkunden des Christenthums (1788). I have not seen the 
English version of Simon’s first two works (London, 1689f.). For an 
estimate of Simon’s contribution to NT criticism, see Margival in RAZ., 


1899, 139-216. 


2 The fifth ed. (1848) of de Wette’s Lehrbuch der hist.-kritischen 
Einleitung (Berlin, 1826) was translated into English by Frothingham 


(U.S.A., 1858). 


ABBREVIATIONS XXxxvil 


(Tubingen, 18307); H. A. Schott, Jsagoge historico- 
critica in libros N. Foederis sacros (Jena, 1830) ; 
Schneckenburger, eztrage zur Einl, in’s NT 
(1832); K. A. Credner’s Zin/. in das NT (Halle, 
1836, with his Das NT nach Zweck, Ursprung, u. 
Inhalt, 1843)*; C. G. Neudecker, Lehrbuch der 
historisch-kritischen Einl. in das NT mit Belegen 
aus den Quellenschriften u. Citaten aus der dlteren 
Μ. neucn Litteratur (Leipzig, 1840) ; J. M. A. Scholz 
(1845 f.); Schleiermacher’s! posthumous Zin/, in das 
N7* (Berlin, 1845, in vol. i. of his collected works, 
ed. G. Wolde) ; J. L. Hug’s Eznl, in die Schriften 
des NT (1847, Fr. tr. by Cellerier, 1823, Eng. tr. of 
third ed. Andover, 1836) *; Daniel Haneberg (1850, 
fourth ed. 1876); Ad. Maier (1852); Joseph Dixon, 
A General Introd. to Sacred Scriptures (1852); F. 
X. Reithmayr’s Zin/. in die kanon. Bucher des NT 
(Regensburg, 1852); J. H. Scholten, K7ritische 
Inleiding tot de Schriften des NT* (1856); de 
Wette’s Zzz/.6 (ed. Messner and Liinemann, 1860) * ; 
H. de Valroger (Jitrod. hist. et critique, 1861); G. 
A. Freytag, die hetlig. Schriften des NT (Berlin, 
1861); Neander, Pfanzung u. Lettung d. christl, 
Kirche® (1862, Eng. tr. 1842, 1865)"; Giinther 
(Introductio, 1863); J. B. Glaire, Introd. Historique 
et Critique aux Livres de Pancien et du Nouveau 
Testament* (1865, Italian tr. 1846); Bleek? (1866, 
Eng. tr., Edin. 1883); Lamy (/strod. in sacras 
Scripturas, 1866-1867, against Scholten) ; Guericke’s 
Isagogtk*® (1868); Joseph Langen, Grundriss der 
Einl. in das NT (Freiburg im B. 1868; second ed. 
1873); Grau’s Antwickelungsgeschichte d. NTlichen 
Schriftthums (1871-1872); Immer’s Hermeneutik 
(1873); Reuss, daze Geschichte d. hetlig. Schriften 
des N7® (1874, Eng. tr. 1884)*; A. Hilgenfeld, 
Historisch-Kritische Einl. in das NT (Leipzig, 
1875)* ; M. Aberle (1877) ; Horne’s /ntrod." (ed. 
Tregelles, 1875); von Hofmann (dze hetlige Schrift 
NT, ix., ed. Volck, 1881); Mangold (ed. of Bleek’s 
Einleitung, 1886)*; B. Weiss, Einl. in das NT 
(third ed. 1897, Eng. tr. of second ed. 1886); L. 
Schulze (in Zockler’s Handbuch der theol. Wiss. 
1883-1889); M. A. N. Rovers, Vieuw-testamentliche 
letterkunde* (1888); Leblois, Zes livres de la 
nouvelle alliance (Paris, 1889); U. Ubaldi, Jtrod. 
in sacram Scripturam NT* (Rome, 1891); H. J. 
1 Critical estimate in J. Conradi’s Schlezermacher’s Arbeit auf dem Gebtets 
dar NT Einleitungswissenschaft (Leipzig, 1907). 


ἡ 


Tiausrath 


HBNT, 
HC, 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Holtzmann, Lehrbuch α΄. historisch-hritischen Ein. 
tn das NT (1892) * ; 5. Davidson? (1894); Godet, 
Introd. au NT (1893-1899, unfinished; Eng. tr. 1894, 
1899); R. Cornely, /ztrod. specialis in singulos NT 
libros? (Paris, 1897); G. Salmon ® (1897); F. 8. 
Trenkle (1897); Th. Zahn, Zzn/. in das NT (1897, 
Eng. tr. of third ed. 1909) ἢ; Aloys Schifer (1898) ; 
W. Ε΄ Adeney, A Brblical Introduction (1899), pp. 
275f.; B. W. Bacon (1900); J. M. S. Baljon, 
Geschiedenis van de boeken des Nieuwen Verbonds 
(1901)*; J. E. Belser, Ainlectung in das NT? 
(1902); A. Jiilicher’s Zzz/. in das NT® (1906)* ; 
E. Jacquier, Histozre des Livres du NT (1903-1908) ; 
von Soden’s Urchristliche Literaturgeschichte (die 
Schriften des NT), 1905 (Eng. tr. 1906); Wrede, de 
Entstehung d. Schriften des NT (1907, Eng. tr. 
1909); Barth, Azn/eztung in das NT (1908) ; C. R. 
Gregory (Zznlettung in das NT, 1909); A. S. 
Peake, Crztical Introduction to the NT (1909)— 
besides the popular manuals by E. H. Plumptre 
({ntrod. to NT, 1883); M. Dods? (/utrod. to N7. 
London, 1894); M‘Clymont, 7he New Testameni 
and its Writers (London, 1893), and Gutjahr 
(Zinlettung . . . Lettfaden zundchst fiir Studierende 
der Theologie, Graz, 1896), along with Weingarten’s 
ed. (Berlin, 1872) of Hertwig, Die Einlettung in’s 
NT im tabellarischer Uebersicht*; P. Fargues, 
Introd. au Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1902), and L. 
Kunze’s Linfiihrung in das NT (Berlin, 1906). 
Hug, Feilmoser, Giinther, Haneberg, Scholz, Maier, 
Reithmayr, Langen, Aberle, Lamy, Cornely, Ubaldi, 
and Schifer, represent the older, Trenkle and Belser 
and Jacquier the modern school of Roman Catholic 
criticism. 

Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (1909 f.). 

Lichtenberger’s Hucyclopédie des Sciences Religteuses 
(1877 f.). 

The Expository Times (ed. J. Hastings, Edinburgh). 

The Expositor (ed. Sir W. R. Nicoll, London ; small 
superior numbers denote the series). 

Gotting. Gelehrte Anzetgen. 

The Gospels as Historical Documents, by V. H. Stanton 
(Oxford) ; i. (1903) ; ii. (1909). 

(i.) Zahn’s Geschichte des NT Kanons (1888 f.);  (ii.) 
Leipoldt’s Gesch. des NT Kanons (1907-1908). 

A History of the NT Times (The Times of the Apostles) ; 
Eng. tr. 1895. 

Handbuch zum N7'(Tiibingen, 1906f., ed. Lietzmann) 

Hand-Commentar sum NT (Freiburg i. B.). 


3 
ue 


Ε 
ms 
va 


ABBREVIATIONS xxxix 


Harnack’s Dogmengeschichte (Eng. tr. in seven volumes, 
‘The History of Dogma,’ 1894 f.), 

Eusebius, Eccles. Historia (ed. Schwartz and Mommsen). 

The Hibbert Journal (London). 

Schiirer’s Geschichte des juid. Volkes (Eng. tr. of second 
ed. under the title, ‘ A History of the Jewish People 
in the Time of Jesus Christ.” The fourth German 
edition is occasionally quoted as G/V),. 

Hennecke’s (i.) Weutestamentliche Apokryphen, and (ii.) 
Handbuch zu den neutest. Apokryphen (Tiibingen, 
1904). 

Moffatt, Zhe Historical New Testament? (Edinburgh, 
1901). 

Sir John C. Hawkins’ Hora Synoptice (1899; second 
ed. 1909). 

The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh). 

The Journal of Biblical Literature. 

Hort’s Judaistic Christianity (1896); G. Hoennicke’s 
Das Judenchristentum (1908). 

Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie. 

The Jewish Quarterly Review (London). 

The Journal of Theological Studies. 

Eng. tr. in six volumes of Keim’s Geschichte Jesu vom 
Nazara. 

Literarisches Centralblatt. 

The Septuagint, cited from Swete’s manual edition 
(Cambridge). 

Harnack’s die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christen- 
thums* (1906; Eng. tr. 1908). 

Meyer’s Kommentar zum NT (latest editions). 

Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift. 

The New Testament in the Apostolie Fathers (Oxford, 
1905). 

The Theology of the New Testament : 

Reuss, “zstotre de la théologie chrétienne aw sidcle 
apostoligue (Eng. tr. of third ed. 1872). 

B. Weiss? (Eng. tr. of third ed. 1888). 

Bovon’s Théologie du NT (1893). 

Beyschlag (Eng. tr. 1896). 

H. J. Holtzmann (1897). 

α. B. Stevens (Internat. Theol. Library, 1899). 

E. P. Gould (1900). 

P. Feine (1910). 


1 Occasionally one or two sentences are reproduced from this earlier 
volume, on the principle defended by Isokrates in his fifth oration (93): 
Kal μηδεὶς ὑπολάβῃ με βούλεσθαι λαθεῖν ὅτι τούτων ἔνια πέφρακα τὸν αὐτὸν 
τρόπον ὅνπερ πρότερον. ἐπιστὰς γὰρ ἐπὶ τὰς αὐτὰς διανοίας εἱλόμην μὴ πονεῖν 
γλιχόμενος τὰ δεδηλωμένα καλῶς ἑτέρως εἰπεῖν. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Schwegler, das machapostolische Zettalter tm den 
Hauptmomenten seiner Entwickelung (Tiibingen, 
1846). R. Knopf, das nachapost. Zeitalter (1905). 

W. C. van Manen, Handletding voor de Oudchristelijke 
Letterkunde (1900). 

Cohn and Wendland’s edition (Berlin, 1896 f.). 

Protestantische Monatshefte (ed. Websky). 

Real-Encyclopidie fiir protest. Theologie ῳ. Kirche* 
(ed. Hauck, 1896-1909). 

Revue Biblique internationale (Paris). 

Renan’s Histoire des Origines du Christianisme (1863 {.,. 
(i.) Vie de Jésus; (ii.) Les Apétres ; (iii.)S. Paw, 
(iv.) L’antéchrist ; (v.) Les évangiles ; (vi.) L’église 
chrétienne. 

Revue de [histoire et de littérature religieuses (Paris). 

Revue de (histoire des religions (Paris, ed. J. Réville). 

Revue Sémitique (Paris). 

Revue de Théologie et des Quest. Religieuses (ed. Bois, 
Montauban). 

Studia Biblica (Oxford). 

Sitzungsberichte der kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften 
zu Ween. 

Sitzungsberichte der kiniglich Preuss. Akad. d. Wissen- 
schaften zu Berlin. 

Studien und Kritiken (Gotha). 

Die Schriften des NT (1905 f., ed. J. Weiss). 

Ramsay's St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen’. 

Strauss’ Leben Jesu (George Eliot’s version, ed. of 1892). 

Theologische Abhandlungen C. von Weizsacker gewidmet 
(Freiburg, 1892). 

Theologische Studien Herrn Prof. B. Weiss dargebracht 
(1897). 

Theologische Literaturzettung. 

Theologische Quartalschrift (Tilbingen). 

Theologische Rundschau (ed. Bousset). 

Texts and Studies (Cambridge). 

Theolog. Tijdschrift (Haarlem). 

Texte und Untersuchungen sur Geschichte der altchrist- 
lichen Literatur (ed. von Gebhardt, Harnack, and 
C. Schmidt). 

Hilgenfeld’s das Urchristenthum in den Hauptwen- 
depunkten seines Entwickelungsganges (1855). 

Spitta’s Zur Geschichte u. Litter. des Urchristenthums 
(i. 1893 ; ii. 1896 ; iii. 1903). 

Heinrici’s das Urchristenthum (Gottingen, 1902). 

Wernle’s die Anfange des Christentum (Eng. tr. undet 
title, ‘ The Beginnings of Christianity,’ 1903 f.). 

Pfleiderer’s das Urchristenthum*® (1903, Eng. te 
1906 f.). 


We. e e 
WH. . . 
OU Gs . 
LAG. e e 
ZNW, e 
ZSchz . 
EMIS . 
LWT, ° 


ABBREVIATIONS xh 


von Dobschiitz’s die urchristlichen Gemeinden (1902 ; 
Eng. tr. ‘Christian Life in the Primitive Churches,’ 
1904). 

Raffaele Mariano’s // Cristianesimo net primi secoli 
(Firenze, 1902). 

The Westminster Commentaries (London: Eng. text 
and notes). 

Westcott and Hort, 7he Mew Testament in Greek. 

Kommentar zum NT (Erlangen, ed. Zahn), 

Brieger’s Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte. 

Preuschen’s Zeztschrift fir die neutest. Wissenschaft 
und aie Kunde des Urchristenthums. 

Theologische Zeitschrift aus der Schwetz (ed. Meili). 

Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche. 

Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift fiir Wessenschaftliche Theologte. 


δ᾽ B.—In the bibliographies an asterisk is appended to works which 
possess special importance, historical or intrinsic, in the criticism of the 


subject. 


᾿ ᾿ ΠῚ] 
᾿ ate 
Uh ae 
oie Ὁ» υ 
Fa yay 
Thee ORS να 


ἀν; ὌΝ ἊΝ 
“mint? Wat | Aiea ie wae 
ns, ae nad oo or ni δ Ὁ τι ie Wad eae vk 
ieee eee ING NN Cu Fk ΟΣ ΤΩΝ 
we = ΑΝ hdl Diss adh ἘΠ Baca ἐμὰ ὕμιν tee eae Yes 
AM RE ᾿ Ὁ ᾿ heeds i a © atta “OE 
Maya. 2 jie en Se a ae Rr AL 
; Aa eh. /S ἜΝ ies ἜΚ Le) νὰ ἡ μὴ δὲ 
ie ACS Ags ae SN ee “huhu eae 
fet ea aay δὴ i fw: id { et Vi Fait tig: Ων 
ὌΝ ΛΗΝΝᾺ A) 
SE δ γε sehr ten Ws io Dien IA ἢ 
f ead Py ANNs Mik TALS Liar ΣΥΝ, eee Agi Ao 
sina bie Rate te {iy ὗν, ΤΕῸΝ νυ ws Ges meats | ab 


a re NOYES EL Fe, 
veel ὴ Ἂν ΣΡ ἜΝ 7S) δὴν τς ΔΎ a 7 nN 


‘ 


ἠ ἂν ‘ 0 > Ἢ 
( Nay Phas Awl uN oe A ae ha ee aye. ot 4d Se Ms ny] fant τ ΠΕ 
ble Ct at banat ts Ee ΙΗ GDA ὃν τὰ 0 A TI 
» vite i >) ’ y 
i 2 ΙΝ 
) ἢ ‘ Ὶ A “ f Pos 
. ; “1 ] A 4 “ 
ἱ a4 i 
νι ἢ ὶ 
} 
' it f ὑπ 
; ᾿ ἱ ' ἢ ‘ hy We, at δὲ a 
ft A y a { coh ὶ ἊΝ 7? 
Ὗ Ϊ ἢ ΓΙ 
tt ν aes τὰ 
᾿ aad RMA hide fs 
7 ἣ ὟΝ a Γ 
i as are Neem why “ 
4 π΄; ͵ 7 ὶ ‘ 
» Ἷ ren ‘ ede ph) 
, f Z ὶ ΟΝ od ADL 
' ‘ ts - ie 
ἡ ΜΠ} I 4 ti ne ἡ Pia 
Ν ed 4 re νὰ Me 
> ν΄ Μ ἊΝ ag ΟΣ 
Ἐ f } } \} 4 ey re 
hi ᾿ 
λυ ΝΥ 
. ‘ Ν 
ΝῊ 
: te a be» ol J 
AD Asan ν i ches 
F i i (Brat 
’ » ἂν Ὁ kK Hee [oh ͵ 
ne ν Ms aig, 
MEE sd ot ee 
vy ἷ oy iy: ita r my ae i 
i. he νυ TY a SP ira 
i ν᾿ ΤΗΝ thd 
᾽ ‘% an 
iv ‘ Vers ‘a Ms 7 “ Υῇ 
ao , 4 { 
a ἡ ᾿ j 
ἢ νυ Ἷ , 
ΠΝ ὁ 4 ϊ Ἱ 
ΣΉ" ‘ ᾿ ᾿ 
aie MY a κα ᾿ hee cna te τῇ 


PROLEGOMENA. 


ρῶν πὴ 


I. 


COLLECTION OF NT WRITINGS INTO A CANON: 
METHOD AND MATERIALS OF NT INTRODUCTION. 


THE early Christian writings which form the New Testament 
fall within a period which covers, roughly speaking, a single 
century. Jesus died about a.p. 30. He wrote none of the 
works treasured by the church. He wrote once, but it was on 
the dust; like Socrates, he remained an authority, not an 
author, for his adherents. The subsequent literature which 
gathered round his name and cause embraced accounts of his 
own life or of the movement which he inaugurated, as well as 
compositions occasioned by exigencies and emergencies in the 
life of the Christian societies throughout the Roman empire. 
The last of these writings (2 Peter) dates not much later than 
about one hundred years after the crucifixion. By the end of 
the second century all our present canonical NT writings are 
known to have been in existence, while the majority existed as a 
sacred collection which was being used for ecclesiastical purposes. 
The problem set to the literary critic is to examine the rise and 
growth of these writings one by one, to estimate their historical 
object, to discuss their inter-relations, and to analyse their 
structure. 

An introduction* to any literature, ancient, medizval, or 


* The Libri Introductorii referred to by the sixth-century aristocratic and 
scholarly monk, M. Aurelius Cassiodorus, in his Jsstitutio diutnarum 
lectionum (Migne, patr. lat. \xx. 1105 f.), appear to have been mainly occupied 
with biblical exegesis and hermeneutic, and the Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὰς θείας γραφάς 
of Hadrianus (fifth century, ed. Gdssling, Berlin, 1887) does not differ 
essentially from the sources used by the Abruzzi scholar. The lost Key to 

I 


2 PROLEGOMENA 


modern, is concerned primarily with literary problems, and with 
other questions only as these impinge upon the central issue, 
namely, the literary genesis and growth of the writings under 
review. The study of the documents as documents is its 
métier. The origin and the objects of these documents in their 
own age form its special business. Yet, as literature rises from 
life, and as any writing not only is shaped by, but itself helps 
to shape, events in history, literary criticism is repeatedly 
obliged to wade into the waters of historical investigation ; 
the imperial policy of Rome, 6.3.» is as germane to the criticism 
of the Apocalypse of John as is the policy of Philip to the 
discussion of Demosthenes’ Olynthiac orations. Literary criticism 
and historical criticism are therefore auxiliary sciences. The 
historian, whether of life or thought, requires to be able to 
presuppose the results of investigation into the date, authenticity, 
and form of the relevant documents ; while the literary critic, in 
order to place his documents, leans on the results of the 
historian’s survey. But neither science can be isolated. Literary 
judgments frequently depend upon some presupposition as to 
the course of history, and the very data for this presupposition 
are often in their turn drawn largely from the documents in 
question. This is not arguing or working in a circle. The 
moment theory is deserted for practice, the difficulties tend to 
solve themselves ; they are really difficulties of method, and it 
the literary critic and the historian keep their respective flags 
flying, they need not scruple to cross their allotted borders 
when occasion demands. 

Much of the historical significance which attaches to certain writings 
would remain hidden from us if we did not happen to know that certain 
events were fresh in the minds of writers and readers alike. Paradise Lost 
is not a political pamphlet, much less a religious treatise; but it is im- 
possible to miss in its dialogues and descriptions either the theology 
of current Puritanism, with its controversies and abstractions, or the 
republican tendencies by which the author’s conceptions of government were 
shaped, or, finally, his instinctive distrust for the intellectual passion awakened 
by the Renaissance. Similarly—to take one instance out of hundreds 
from ancient literature—the Prometheus Vinctus and the Septem contra 
Thebas are unintelligible apart from the aspirations of the Athenian 


τύραννοι and Themistokles. The literary and historical criticism of the NT 
has a corresponding duty of unravelling the various threads of influence 


the Interpretation of the Scriptures, by Melito of Sardis (Ἢ κλεῖς), probably 
belonged to the same class. 


METHOD OF NT INTRODUCTION 3 


which tie a writing to some period. It is essential here as elsewhere to 
ascertain the mental and moral latitudes in which an author worked, to use 
his work in conjunction with other aids for the discovery and illustration of 
these latitudes, and again to use these for the further elucidation of the book 
itself. The latter is moved more or less, according to its character, by 
recent and contemporary events, just as the period in its turn is set off and 
rendered more vivid by the contemporary literature— 


** Like as the wind doth beautify a sail, 
And as a sail becomes the unseen wind.” 


As the early Christian literature was not national, however, such 
synchronisms* yield less for the NT than for almost any other group of 
ancient writings. We should expect, ¢g.,' that an event like the fall of 
Jerusalem would have dinted some of the literature of the primitive church, 
almost as the victory at Salamis has marked the /erse. It might be 
supposed that such an epoch-making crisis would even furnish criteria for 
determining the dates of some of the NT writings. As a matter of fact, 
the catastrophe is practically ignored in the extant Christian literature of the 
first century. Beyond slight traces in the synoptic, especially the Lucan, 
version of the eschatological predictions made by Jesus, and a possible echo 
in one of the sources underlying the Apocalypse, no vibrations of the crisis 
can be felt. 


Literary criticism and textual criticism are also bound to 
overlap at many points ; but each has a sphere of its own. The 
boundary question here is theoretically simpler than between the 
historian and the literary critic. The place of investigation into 
early Christian tradition is more difficult to determine. An 
ancient writing often lies in a matrix of later information upon 
its origin or its author, and it is necessary to examine such 
materials in order to ascertain whether or how far they are the 
result of later fancy wearing unreliable reports around an honoured 
literary product, or the outcome of a genuine tradition which 
goes back in subterranean fashion to the very period at which 
and for which the author wrote. 

From such difficulties, arising out of the content and the 
form of documents, it is not to be expected that a critical 
Introduction to the literature of the NT can be exempt. 
Volumes on this subject have often been planned and executed 
along lines which overlapped into the sphere of works upon 
early church history, New Testament theology, and textual 
criticism. In the hands of some older writers, like Horne and 


“A Contemporary History of the New Testament is to form a special 
volume of the International Theological Library. 


4 PROLEGOMENA 


Glaire, NT Introduction was equivalent to an encyclopedia or 
biblical dictionary, in which all topics relative to the contents 
as well as to the form of the NT writings were elaborately 
discussed, whether historical, literary, textual, or archzological. 
The escape from this ideal of a Juvenalian farrago was only 
a matter of time. With the development of historical criticism 
and the increasing specialisation which it demanded, such a con- 
ception of Introduction became more and more impracticable. 
It is now recognised that while a NT Introduction handles 
the materials of volumes on the language and text of the NT 
writings as well as on the apostolic age, it is differentiated 
from these by a controlling reference to the literary problem 
as such, which determines roughly the amount of space assigned 
to questions of chronology, theology, archeology, and textual 
criticism. 

Naturally it is impossible, ¢.g., to discuss Paul’s epistle to the 
Christians of Galatia without some reference to the narrative of 
Acts and the geographical data of the provinces in Asia Minor, 
or to pronounce on the authenticity of the second epistle to the 
Thessalonians without checking the results of recent inquiry into 
the eschatological currents flowing through Judaism and primitive 
Christianity. Textual criticism also bears directly upon several 
problems in the literary criticism of the documents, as, ¢.g., in 
the case of the Bezan text of Acts, or of the pericopé in the 
Fourth gospel, or of the appendix to Mark’s gospel. The 
new attention paid to the Old Latin and Syriac versions, which 
promise to throw light on the Greek text prior to the rise of 
the great uncials, is destined to affect NT Introduction as well 
as exegesis in the near future. But it is the problem of tradition 
which is most crucial. It assumes a much more serious character 
in NT Introduction than is usual elsewhere in the literary 
criticism of classical or Oriental literature. The problem of 
tradition is, in one aspect, a phase of investigation in early 
church history ; but, in another, it is bound up with the special 
question of the Canon*—a question which, by its unique 
significance, imposes specific difficulties upon the literary criti- 
cism of the NT. As the very term Vew Zes/ament suggests, 
these writings are extant in a special collection. The idea and 


* The right of historical criticism to examine the origin and authority of 
the NT Canon was first stated by Semler in his Abhandlung von freier 
Untersuchung des Kanons (1771-1775). 


METHOD OF NT INTRODUCTION 5 


the history of this collection belong to the province of church 
history and to the special department of the Canon; but it 
would be unscientific to treat NT Introduction as if it were 
entirely insulated from contact with all such problems. The (i.) 
very process of collecting and arranging the various documents 
has not been without its effect upon the shape, the order, and 
even the contents of the documents themselves ; and (ii.) the 
various strata of ecclesiastical tradition during the second and 
the first half of the third century—after which time little or 
no valuable information need be looked for—preserve several 
items of interest and importance about the primitive documents, 
which, like lumps of quartz, need to be carefully washed if they 
are to yield any specks of golden, authentic tradition. 


This view of the method and functions of NT Introduction may appear 
comparatively obvious, but it has only been held within fairly recent years. 
Indeed, with the possible and partial exception of Junilius,* a royal official 
of Constantinople during the first half of the sixth century, whose /mstitutzo 
regularia dtiuine legis (ed. Kihn, Freiburg, 1880) incorporated the substance 
of lectures given by Paul of Nisibis upon the authorship, authority, and 
contents of the Scriptures, nothing worthy of the name of a NT Intro- 
duction was written till the sixteenth century, unless we stretch the term far 
enough to include the Muratorian Canon, which gives a few words upon 
several of the NT writings, the Church History of Eusebius, which gathers up 
many current traditions, the books mentioned on p. 1, and subsequent 
treatises such as the twelfth century de erudztione didascalia and de scriptura 
et scriptoribus prenotatiuncule by Hugo of St. Victor, and the fourteenth 
century Postille perpetua in uniuersa biblia of Nicolas the Franciscan of 
Lyra. Even in the sixteenth century, historical criticism of the Scriptures was 
hardly born within the church, as is plain from the so-called Introductions 
by the Dominican friars Santes Pagninus (/sagoge ad sacras litteras liber 
unus, Lyons, 1536) and Sixtus of Siena, whose important Bzb/otheca sancta 
(Venice, 1566), in eight books, was dominated by the recent decision of the 
Council of Trent upon the Canon. The influence of Sixtus is visible in the 
Jesuit Salmeron’s Prolegomena in uniuersam scripturam (Madrid, 1597). 
No real advance was made by the various Roman Catholic writers of the 
seventeenth century in Spain or Germany. Dogmatic interests were equally 
strong within the Reformed churches, meanwhile, as almost every page of 
the /sagoge of Andreas Rivetus and the EZachiridion biblicum (1681) of J. H. 
Heidegger makes clear. 

With the writings of Richard Simon, the French Oratorian priest, a 
new day dawned for the science of NT Introduction. Among the 
numerous good services which modern research owes to this great scholar 


* He was a friend of Primasius, the bishop of Hadrumetum, who com- 
mented on the Apocalypse ; cf. Kihn’s 7heodor von Mopsuestia und Junil. 
Africanus (1879), pp. 213 f, 


6 PROLEGOMENA 


are the separation for the first time * of the OT from the NT, the applica- 
tion of literary criticism to the writings, and the employment of textual 
criticism as a factor in the process of appreciating the various documents. 
The translation of Simon’s essays into German, and the publication of 
Michaelis’ /stroduction (Gottingen, 1750 f.), started a prolonged series of 
really critical works in Germany, of which the most notable were de Wette’s, 
Credner’s, and Schleiermacher’s ; the most popular, from the Roman Catholic 
side, was Hug’s. The rise of the Tiibingen school marked the next epoch in 
the history of the science. Although Baur himself wrote no actual Introduc- 
tion, his interpretation of the apostolic age and its writings exercised a 
powerful influence, attractive as well as antagonistic, upon all who were 
seriously engaged in NT research.t The outstanding contribution of the 
Tiibingen movement to NT Introduction { was its emphasis on the close 
relation between history and literature; it failed to make due allowance for 
the pre-dominantly religious interest of the apostolic age as distinguished from 
polemic, but it assigned each document to some phase or another of a 
historical evolution within the early church. The value of this principle was 
independent of the particular application made of it by Baur and his followers. 
A debt of gratitude is further due to ‘‘the sincerity and courage of the 
‘Tiibingen school . . . Not only were the facts emphasised by them, however 
exceptional, important, and unduly neglected ; not only did they do justice to 
the ideal which underlies the concrete; but truth, and therefore piety, can 
permanently only be the gainer by the results of free investigation, with 
ample consideration of the strength and weakness of every rational hypothesis ” 
(Dr. A. Robertson, Regnum Det, p. 83). While Baur’s particular positions in 
NT criticism were frequently supported in detail, the publication of Ritschl’s 
Entstehung der althatholischen Kirche (2nd ed. 1857) and of Hilgenfeld’s 
Einleitung showed that the general thesis could not be worked out over the 
field of the NT literature. This has been confirmed not so much by 
opponents of Baur like Guericke, Salmon, and von Hofmann, as by the 
independent treatises of Reuss, Mangold, and above all H. J. Holtzmann, 
whose standard work represents quite a modified form of Baur’s hypothesis. 
At present, workers in the science of NT Introduction may be divided into 
three groups. The radical wing is represented by Havet in France, and 
especially by van Manen and Rovers in Holland. The liberal wing 
numbers not only Holtzmann, but Jiilicher (his crisp, first rate manual is rather 
less radical than even Holtzmann’s), von Soden, Bacon, and Baljon. The 


* Not for the last time, unfortunately. The collocation of the two 
survives in popular or semi-critical volumes like J. K. Huber’s Zinle‘tung 
in die simm lichen Biicher d. heil. Schrift® (1840), Gilly’s Préc?s (1867-1868), 
A. Schlaiter’s Einleitung in die Bibel (1889), Cornely’s Compendium 
(1889), F. W. Weber’s Kurzgefasste Einlertung in die heil. Schriften AT und 
NT 9 (ed. Deinzer, 1891), and Franz Kaulen’s Linleitung in die hetlige 
Schrift Alten u. Neuen Testaments ὃ (1905). 

+ A sympathetic and critical sketch of Baur’s great services to NT 
Introduction is given by Holtzmann (Mew 'Vorld, 1894, 207-218). 

Ὁ So far as method was concerned, the effect was less salutary; it tended 
to resolve NT Introduction into the history of the Canon, 


METITOD OF NT INTRODUCTION 7 


conservative wing includes, besides all the Roman Catholic writers, B. Weiss, 
Godet, and Zahn; the latter’s volumes are conspicuous for their massive 
learning. Apart from S. Davidson, whose pint of view approximated 
generally to that of Hilgenfeld, the few English writers on this subject are 
predominantly conservative (Adency with some modifications), with the 
recent and brilliant exception of Peake. 

Amid the varieties of critical opinion during last century, however, there 
was a prevailing adherence to the method first laid down in full by 
de Wette, who showed in practice how NT Introduction could be cleared 
from extraneous and heterogeneous elements. He and Reuss brought out 
the literary function of Introduction. It was now seen pretty generally that 
the science must devote itself more than ever to the problems clustering 
round the origin and growth of the NT writings, taken individually and in 
groups, whilst the final phase of their historical setting lay in their gradual 
incorporation into the Canon. Thus, while the canonical environment of 
the writings lent a certain unity to the studies bearing upon their contents 
and career, the extension of interest to the dumain of their literary and 
historical environment invested the science with an unwonted elasticity. Its 
task was ‘‘to take that section of early Christian literature which has been 
allotted the rank of a classical literature for Christendom, thanks to the 
conception of the Canon, and apply thereto the laws of literary and historical 
criticism which cover the writings in question, when treated as literary 
products at any rate—and this apart altogether from the further question 
whether the outcome of such a subsumption of the NT under the general 
category of literary growth must end in the confirmation, or supersession, 
or modification of the dogma of the Canon” (Holtzmann, 2 7711. p. 13). 

This modern conception, which is due to the rise of the historical method, 
was first stated definitely by Hupfeld in his essay, Uber Begriff u. Methode 
der sogen. biblischen Einleitung (Marburg, 1844). Many critics still clung 
to the idea that an Introduction to the NT literature corresponded more or 
less to a critical account of the Canon,* and that the business of the science 
was to investigate a book’s title to the predicate of canonical ; but, on the 
whole, the conception of NT Introduction as a history of the NT 
literature had now fairly won its footing. Literary problems, in the light of 
historical research, were recognised to be paramount. One result has been 
that, instead of dwelling on the ecclesiastical function of the writing. or on their 
reception into the Canon, critics have turned to devote more attention to the 
rise and shape of the individual writings, studying each either by itself or in 
the group to which its inner affinities, not necessarily its canonical position, 
would assign it. 

At the same time a NT Introduction is not equivalent to a collection of 
such brief introductions as might be prefixed to separate editions of the books 


* So even Baur (7heo/. Jahrb,, 1850, pp. 474 f.), though his historical 
sense led him to define ‘‘ Introduction” finally as ‘‘ the theological science 
which has to investigate the origin, primitive situation, and characteristics 
of the canonical writings.” Compare Hupfeld’s criticism in SA. (1561, 
pp. 1 f.), and Baur’s further exposition in Zheol. Jahré., 1851, pp. 70 f., 
222f., 291 f. 


8 PROLEGOMENA 


in question. The science of NT Introduction deals with each writing not 
merely as it stands by itself, but as it is correlated to the other volumes of its 
special group or of the canonical collection in general, endeavouring to set 
each book in its relative literary position, marking its place in the de- 
velopment of the whole, and indicating the later processes of ecclesiastical 
rearrangement by which often it was shifted from its original position toa 
more or less alien place in the collection. It is only by the pursuit of this 
historical and genetic line that NT Introduction escapes from the reproach of 
being largely concerned with ‘isolated points which have no connection 
among themselves,” * or of leaving upon the mind the impression of a 
literature which lies unrelated and accidental, resembling either 


“Α lonely mountain tarn, 
Unvisited by any stream,” 


or a series of deep scattered pools, one book or group of books coming 
after another in a more or less haphazard fashion. It is indispensable to 
detect the running stream of life that winds steadily, for all its eddies and 
backwaters, between and through these varied writings; and this is 
impossible till the critic stands beside the life which they presuppose and out 
of which they rise. He can do this and at the same time keep in view the 
fact, of which the Canon serves as a reminder, that the NT writings not 
only sprang out of history but had a history of their own, and that apart 
from the second and third century literature they would often be misinter- 
preted, if not unintelligible in more ways than one. 


In a note to the first chapter of Zhe Fair Maid of Perth, 
discussing the magnificent view of the Tay valley which may be 
gained from the Wicks of Baiglie, Scott quotes what a local 
guide said, on reaching a bold projecting rock on Craig Vinean 
—‘ Ah, sirs, this is the decisive point.” One of the first objects 
of the literary historian, in attempting the survey of any period, 
is to secure the decisive point from which he may command the 
lie of the country, and see it as fully as possible in its natural 
proportions. Such a vantage-ground lies usually at some 
@istance from the particular literature. That is one reason why 
the decisive point of elevation from which to scan the primi- 
tive Christian literature is to be found in the traditions which 
begin to rise by the second half of the second century, when 
writings of the primitive age had begun to be gathered into a 
sacred collection. This starts a further question, however. The 
primitive canon does not correspond exactly to the contents of 
the modern NT, but the idea is the same, viz., that of a selection 
made for ecclesiastical purposés. ‘This idea, as well as the very 
name of * New Testament,” is later than the writings which have 

9 Dr. M. W. Jacobus, 4 Predlem in NI Criticism (1900), Ρ. 49 


RELEVANCE OF CANON 9 


gravitated into the Canon. The large majority of these writings 
originated in a period when there was no “New Testament,” 
and no thought of any such collection. None of them was 
written for a canonical position, and it is therefore an anachron- 
ism for literary and historical criticism to attach the predicate of 
“‘canonica'” to them, or to treat them as if they had possessed 
from the first a privileged and unique character. The NT 
Canon represents a dogmatic selection from the literature of 
primitive Christianity. In accepting this selection for the 
purpose of literary criticism, is there not a danger, it may be 
asked, of isolating the writings unhistorically under the influence 
of what was the postulate of a later generation? This contention 
does not necessarily cast any reflection upon the instinct which 
led the early church to draw up such a collection; it does not 
mean that the unity of the New Testament is a purely factitious 
characteristic which has been imposed upon its contents by the 
ecclesiastical interests of a subsequent age.* ‘‘No one is called 
upon to deny that the ancient church in her New Testament 
brought together upon the whole what was of most value from 
the religious standpoint, and also upon the whole all that was 
oldest and therefore, from a documentary standpoint, most 
important, not only in the literature known to us, but in the 
current literature of the period” (Wrede, Ueber Aufgabe una 
Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlichen Theologie, 1897, p. 
11). The pith and justice of the argument lie in its protest 
against introducing a friort conceptions of unity and uniqueness 
into the historical criticism of the religious ideas and the literary 
form of the New Testament writings. It has less bearing, in any 
case, upon the literary criticism than upon the theological study 
of the NT.{ Strictly speaking, the method of the former should 


* Cf. on this Denney’s Death of Christ (1902), pp. 1-4, and Sanday in 5 2 2. 
ii, 576-577. 

+ The opening pages of Wrede’s essay (pp. 8-17, cp. GGA., 1896, 525 f.), 
G. Kriiger’s pamphlet on Das Dogma vom Neuen Testament (1896), and his 
pages in ARW., 1902, 258f., 267f., represent this position most effectively. 
The credit of starting it originally belongs to the two Dutch scholars, van 
Manen (cf. £Az. 3471f.) and Baljon. On the general principle, see 
Preuschen’s paragraphs in ZVW. (1900), pp. το f. 

¢ As early as Clement of Rome and Ignatius there is a retrospective recogni- 
tion of an authority in religious tradition which belonged to the apostles ; but 
this was not confined to extra-canonicai writers, and it did not necessarily imply 
a literary record or expression of that authority, 


10 PROLEGOMENA 


include the non-canonical compositions which are contemporary 
with the canonical, as is done, e.g., by Schwegler and Pfleiderer, by 
Reuss and van Manen, and in ἃ. Kriger’s Geschichte d. altchrist. 
Litteratur. Practical considerations, however, determine other- 
wise. Since the present series is a “theological” library,—imply- 
ing that the inclusion of the New Testament writings denotes 
their canonical character,—and since Dr. C. R. Gregory’s volume 
has outlined the process by which they attained this position 
in the church, the present volume is perforce confined to the 
earlier history of the Christian writings which have thus become 
canonical; only, it is written from the standpoint which views 
them not as canonical but as products of the primitive Christian 
movement, and it attempts primarily to read them in the light 
not of what they afterwards became or did, but of what they 
were to the age and circle of their origin. The question 
practically renders itself into one of method. So long as 
inquiries into the literature of the NT are prosecuted apart 
from any dogmatic assumptions upon the priority or superiority 
of that literature to the other writings of the period, no breach 
of scientific principle is committed. The dependence of the 
Fourth gospel, ¢eg., upon Justin or even the Leucian Acts, 
may be denied, but not for the @ prior? reason that the one 
is canonical and the others are not. Criticism, again, may 
place certain NT writings in the same period as others 
which are 


‘* Contemporaneous, 
No question, but how extraneous 
In the grace of soul, the power 
Of hand.” 


This description, however, must be deduced from the internal 
evidence of the books in question, not from any consideration 
of the canonical prestige which attaches to one or other of them 
Thus, even when the immediate scope of the inquiry is con- 
fined to a selection from the early Christian literature, the 
principles on which the investigation proceeds need not and 
must not be narrowed in such a way as to exclude from the 
purview of the critic any relevant data furnished by the form 
and contents of any contemporary literature which is extant. 
So far as literary morphology is concerned, ¢.g., no valid distinc- 
tion can be drawn between the so-called “NT” literature 


RELEVANCE OF CANON II 


and the early Christian writings of the first or the second 
century.* The same forms appear; epistles continue to be 
written ; apocalypses start up; acts are compiled; and even 
gospels continue to rise above the surface. Each genre has an 
earlier example within the NT collection, but the later produc- 
tions are by no means merely imitative in form or contents; the 
derivative element is frequently lost amid the vigorous and 
independent creations of apologist or romancer. Besides, some 
(e.g. Clemens Romanus, perhaps Barnabas) are prior to, and 
others at least (Ignatius) contemporaries of, one or two writings 
which are now included in the Canon. No line of demarcation 
can be drawn even in time any more than in form. 


(a) Unless the literary criticism of early Christian writings is to become 
merely a subordinate branch of dogmatic theology Τ or of church history, it 
must apparently forego its rights to use the title of ‘‘ NT Introduction 
except upon the grounds of practical convenience. From the logical and 
historical point of view there is no such thing as a science of NT Introduction, 
unless ‘‘ NT” is regarded as equivalent to the NT Canon, and the origin of 
the various NT writings treated merely as a prelude to their subsequent 
history in the church. But while the scientific ideal would undoubtedly be 
an Introduction to the early Christian literature, which abstains on principle 
from crowning any members of the primitive company with a posthumous 
halo, just as conscientiously as a modern philologist would refuse to treat the 
language of the NT writers as an isolated island in the sea of the profaner 
κοινή, the NT is with us, and it will be with us tothe end. Partly owing to 
intrinsic, partly owing to extrinsic qualities, its contents have acquired a vogue 
shared by no other early Christian writings,t and there are practical considera- 
tions in favour of continuing to treat this selection of choice documents as a 
separate whole, in the light of its wider literary environment. Most writers 
on NT Introduction add to their discussion of the separate NT writings not 
only a section on the Canon, but also some account of the uncanonical literature. 
But this is to swell the size of a NT Introduction without adequately avoiding 
its unscientific bias. Even when a NT Introduction is confined to a discussion 


* See Ἐς Overbeck’s essay, ‘ Uber die Anfiinge der patristischen Literatur’ 
in Historische Zeitschrift (1882), pp. 417-472, especially pp. 428 f. 

t Or of apologetic, as, ¢.g., A. G. Rudelbach (Zectschrift fiir lutherische 
Theologie τ. Kirche, 1848, pp. 1f.) and Aberle (Zzx/. pp. 3f.) held quite 
frankly. 

t ‘*The books did not come together by chance. They are not held 
together simply by the art of the bookbinder. It would be truer to say that 
they gravitated towards each other in the course of the first century of the 
church’s life, and imposed their unity on the Christian mind, than that the 
church imposed on them by statute . . . a unity to which they were inwardly 
strange” (Denney, Zhe Death of Christ, 1902, p. 3). 


12 PROLEGOMENA 


of the NT books, the scientific demands of literary criticism may be met by 
following a method which actually, though not formally, treats the canonical 
writings not as canonical but as early Christian documents, eschewing any 
factitious or fortuitous grouping due to a later period, and steadily keeping in 
view their relations to the so-called uncanonical document of the first and 
second centuries. This, it must be confessed, isa makeshift. But it manages 
to conserve the rights of historical criticism. 

(ὁ) The name is older than the subject. Exposition and inspiration (z.e. 
the problems of canonical authority) rather than literary criticism occupied the 
earlier works which may be grouped under the title of Introduction,* from 
Adrianus to Santes Pagninus and Rivetus. Such treatises grouped the OT 
and the NT together. Latterly, their interest in the canonical authority of 
the scriptures led to an increasing emphasis upon the question of the text, 
which the investigations of Simon and Mill soon forced into prominence. 
The former of these scholars, though none of his works is called an Introduc- 
tion, is the real founder of the modern science. In point of fact, even prior 
to Simon, the most relevant materials of Introduction were furnished by works 
which bore other names, from the Muratorian Canon and the writings of 
Jerome (especially the de uzris inlustribus, which had so powerful an influence 
on medieval thought 8) down to the Dominican Sixtus and M. Walther 
(Oficina Biblica, 1636). There have been three distinct stages in the 
development of NT Introduction. The first is marked by R. Simon’s works, 
which emphasised the duty of investigating the pre-canonical origin of the 
literature. The second synchronises with the discussions upon the relation 
of the science to the NT Canon, which are associated with the names of 
Hupfeld and Baur, especially the former. By this time NT Introduction 
had realised to some degree its vocation in literary and historical criticism 
alike. The third stage, inaugurated by Overbeck and worked out by the 
scholars above noted (p. 9), is still in progress. At first sight it appears to 
spell the death of the science, resolving it into the larger discipline of an 
Introduction to the early Christian literature ; but there is less practical justifica- 
tion for this Ὁ than for the allied purpose to replace ‘‘ NT theology” by ‘‘ The 
history of religious ideas in primitive Christianity.” 

The fullest study of the history of NT Introduction is Zahn’s article in 
PRE. v. 261-274; the English student will find materials in Bleek’s 7V7. 
i. pp. 7-38, and Weiss (77. §§ 1-4), as well asin H. 5. Nash’s History of the 
Higher Criticism of the New Testament, and G. H. Gilbert's /nterpretation of 
the Bible (1908); although the latter, like R. Simon’s exhaustive Hzstoire 
critique des principaux commentateurs du NT depuis le commencement du 
Christianisme jusques ἃ nébtre temps (1693), deals with exegesis rather than 
Introduction proper. ; 


* On Jerome’s influence upon the Canon of the Western Church, see Sir 
H. Howorth in J/7S. x. 481 f. 
+ Cf. J. Weiss, Die Aufgaben der Neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft (1908), 


pp- 32, 48. 


ARRANGEMENT OF WRITINGS 13 


ΤΙ 
ARRANGEMENT OF NT WRITINGS. 


Do the traditions underlying the various early canonical ar- 
rangements of the NT throw any reliable light upon the origin 
and relative position of the latter? This question must be asked 
and answered before the canonical order is set aside by literary 
criticism. It involves an inquiry into the sequence and contents 
of the various sections in the NT Canon (cp. Zahn’s GX. ii. 
343-383; 5. Berger, Hestoire de la Vulgate (1893), pp. 301f., 
331 f.; Moffatt, AMZ. pp. 107-117; Jiilicher’s Zin/. § 46; 
Nestle’s Einf. 127-128). 

In the following lists, early Christian writings like the 
Apocalypse of Peter and Hermas, which are frequently ranged 
with the canonical, have been omitted for the sake of clearness. 
Heb. is ranked with the Pauline epp., except where otherwise 
noted. It is obvious that the relative order of the sections 
cannot be earlier than the third or fourth century, when the 
whole of the NT came to be written as a single codex, and 
that even the order of books in the separate sections seldom 
goes further back than the period when the collection of gospels 
or epistles was first made. 


(a) The order (cp. Credner’s GX. pp. 390f. ; Barth’s Zzx/. pp. 387 f. ; 
Gregory’s Canon and Text of NT, pp. 467-469) of the component 
sections of the Canon occupies the first place in this preliminary inquiry ; 
but, although the results are fairly clear, their value for the historical 
appreciation of the writings is of subordinate importance. As the reader 
will notice from the appended tables (expanded from AV7. pp. 108 f.), the 
gospels almost invariably come first, though in the synopsis of Chrysostom, 
as in D, they follow Paul, owing to liturgical reasons. The Apoc, again, 
is as invariably last, though in the Decretum Gelasii (which otherwise tallies 
with B), as in the Fleury palimpsest and in the Catalogus Mommsenianus 
(which otherwise tallies with A), it precedes the catholic epistles, while in 
the oldest Armenian MS (Venet., c. 1220 A.D.), which otherwise tallies 
with B, Paul follows the Apoc. 

The usual position of Acts, before or after the catholic epistles, and the 
explicit title of the former, Actus Apostolorum (Iren. adv. Her. iii. 13. 3, 
etc.) or Acta omnium Apostolorum (Murat.), though erroneous, denote the 
catholicizing tendency of the early church. Philastrius (4th cent., Her. 
Ixxxviil.) observes that the catholic epistles ‘‘actibus apostolorum conjunctz 
sunt”; this is the order in A, FE, F, and G, their priority (in E and ΕἾ over 
Paul being due to the influence of Gal 117 (τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους). Acts 
was of special value not only as an introduction upon the one hand to Paul’s 
tpistles, but as a witness, on the other hand, to the twelve apostles (as repre- 


14 PROLEGOMENA 


sented by the catholic epistles); in this way it seemed to prove the unity 
of the early church. Its position immediately after the gospels was due to 
the feeling that the historical books should go together. 


A B* Cc D | E ¥ Gt 
“es aE yecisereee a aaa yeu ts Be 

A on“ 9 aA alan heey σ΄ ΕΞ 

ΕΠ τὸΣ ἘΠ ἸΞΈΞΞΙ] $83 | 8 
no Sate es : ΞΟ Ὁ Ζ ἃ, 3a a ΟἹ 
oD "ΟΞ ἡ oe aotery oS) Bd ogee Bud 
£5 ΞΕ δι Ξ ΞΙ προς δ 4 καὶ mos 
oie Sie = πω ὦ ἢ ἘΠ ΘῈΣ τ 
ῳ eos 5 a SHE aN ey. Ie 
τὸ ἘΝ: 5s ΞΘ | Sas ese 
τ ἢ SS ayao τς [5] 5.Ξ5 peti £3 8 
13. | Benes : ΞΞΕ i Beg. | ae 
ABs ΞΕΞΕ Ἢ Ὁ ΞΟ 96, 5. ὁ Zee 
BOd | 24RW0 ΞΕ ΕΞ σα 5.9) Ξό eS 
[2 oO Oo < ῳ [4] - 
Ενν Ενν Paul Acts Evv 
Paul Acts Evv Paul Acts 
Acts Paul Acts Evv Cath 
Cath Cath Cath Paul 
Apoc Apoc Apoc 


(ὁ) More interest attaches to the order of the writings included in these 
sections. With regard to the gospels (cp. Nestle’s Zzuf. pp. 127 f. ; Zahn’s 
GK. ii. 364f., 1014), the main data may be tabulated as follows :— 


A B Cc D E F Gt 
Sots canoe we, ἢ κοτε ςς : a ΑΞ τ ὁ 
ΞΞ ΕΞ gf |gsos3 S ge | ES85 

Ξ Finks 5 nies ES to > peerlel 
£ ZG o ΡΞ wo 
ane ὁ ES [902 & aes rl Ge ἼΣΟΣ: 
O wzd BS hers ἐπ ae us ere eee 

2 Ξ One Baa ἘΔ ΩΣ 58 a's wag -κὰ 

ὧν ἡ “ Ses (5279 5 ae PS peace 

reas 2 τι [ἢ Ais ΕἸ ERS οὔ Bo". 
455 " ἡ a. io) Ξ 4 : τῶ δ “πο POX 
3 -Ὡ ὦ -.- - “ LZ ou - μον OD ey 
SRles pte 2 ws τ σα, ἕο ὦ 2 ys .Ξ Ὃ μὴ Ξ ΕΣ 
S25 iS 9 2ee |e duel ΟΞ θὲ a2" O'S 
Φ ὦ aA a vu (terry 
ΞΕ «ας Ἑ fia |en%hse| ss oo lead oe 
= ῳ - ῳ Oo Ξ 

Μι Μι Μι Μι Μι Jn 

Mk Lk Mk Jn Jn Mt 

Lk Mk Jn Lk Mk Lk 

Jn Jn Lk Mk Lk Mk 


*So Greg. Naz., omitting Apoc. The order of B (‘‘item ordo 
Scripturarun NT quem sancta catholica Romana suscipit et ueneratur 
ecclesia,” Decret. Gelasii) was adopted finally by the Council of Trent. 

+So Apost. Canons, omitting Apoc, and Catalogus Claromontanus 
(4th cent.), placing Apoc before Acts. The original order of Codex Berz 
(cp. Dom Chapman in Zxf.* July 1905, 46-53) seems to have been Evv, 
Apoc, Cath (1-3 Jn), Acts. 

+ Minuscule 19 has Jn, Mt, Lk, Mk; minuscule 90 has Jn, Lk, Mt, Mk. 
Here, as in D and F, Mk is put last on the score of its size. Corroboration 
of this order was probably found (as by Irenzeus and Victorinus) in Apoc 
4’, where John was identified with the lion, Luke with the calf, Matthew 
with the man, and Mark with the eagle. The more common arrangement 


ARRANGEMENT OF WRITINGS 15 


A, which was adopted by the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), reflects an 
early tradition preserved by Origen (Eus. 27. Z. vi. 25. 3), who learnt ἐν 
παραδόσει that Mt was written first of all, then Mk (on the basis of Peter’s 
preaching), thirdly Lk (referred to in Ro 2156, 2 Ti 28), ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τὸ 
κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην (so Jn Jesum Nave hom. vii. 1). It is reproduced by the 
large majority of manuscripts and versions. B is another early arrangement, 
reported by Clement (Eus. 27. Z. vi. 14, 5-7) as a παράδοσις περὶ τῆς τάξεως 
τῶν εὐαγγελίων which he had received from τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων. The 
tradition thus goes back to the middle of the second century at least, if it 
is not earlier ; there are even traces of it in Irenzeus. But the principle of 
arrangement is that priority belongs to the gospels which contain genealogies ; 
Mark’s gospel reflec:s the subsequent preaching of Peter at Rome, while John’s 
is the spiritual gospel which crowns and supplements all three. Otherwise 
(except in D and F) Mk as the Petrine gospel precedes the Pauline Lk. 
Irenzeus, indeed, gives a chronological basis for A (cp. Eus. &. &. v. 8. 2), 
but the traditions which he preserves fall to be discussed in connexion with 
the gospels of Matthew and Mark (see below). The gradual (C-G) elevation 
of Jn from the fourth place to the first or second was due to the theory 
that the directly apostolic gospels (Mt, Jn) were in a position of priority as 
compared with those which were merely composed by apostolic subordinates 
(Mk, Lk),* perhaps also to the idea t that Jn was written when the circle 
of the apostles was still unbroken (cp. Schwartz, Der Tod d. Sohne 
Zebedaet, pp. 26f.), and possibly to a desire for emphasis on the gospels 
which connected Jesus directly with the OT. G certainly reflects a 
pre-Origen order current in the Egyptian church. The monarchian 
prologues to the four gospels, which represent on the other hand a Roman 
tradition slightly later than the Muratorian Canon (cp. Corssen in 7'U. 
xv. I), place Mt first, as written before the others in Judea; then Jn 
(‘‘qui etsi post omnes euangelium scripsisse dicitur, tamen dispositione 
canonis ordinati post Mattheum ponitur”); then Lk and Mk, though the 
latter (written in Italy) chronologically preceded the former.t The prologues 


of the symbols (cp. Swete’s Mark, pp. xxxvif.), which allied the figures 
_respectively to Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, does not seem to have 
influenced the chronological order, but in the old Latin codex Bobiensis 
Mk precedes Mt. 

*See Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 2 (“‘nobis fidem ex apostolis Johannes et 
Matthzeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant, iisdem 
regulis exorsi”’). 

+ This notion, which underlies the Muratorian Canon’s account of the 
Fourth gospel’s origin, probably explains the subsequent allusion in the 
same Canon to the priority of the Apocalypse over Paul (‘‘cum ipse beatus 
apostolus Paulus sequens prodecessoris sui Johannis ordinem ron_ nisi 
nhominatim septem ecclesiis scribat).” 

_ ~The remark that Mk ‘non laborauit natiuitatem carnis, quam in 
prioribus uiderat, dicere,” seems to contradict this, whether 77 pr/orshus 


(sc. ewangeliis) refers to Mt and Lk (Corssen), or to Mt and Jn (see 
the words immediately above, “‘initium carnis in domino et dei aduenientis 
habitaculum”). Zahn’s attempt to explain the phrase as a trans!stion of 


ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων or ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν, is quite improbable. 


16 PROLEGOMENA 


thus witness to the order of A as that of the composition of the four, but for 
ecclesiastical reasons they reproduce D. The Western order of D also occurs 
in the newly discovered (Egyptian) Freer MS. Here as elsewhere Mk’s size 
was probably one reason for Lk’s priority. A is probably the oldest tradition 
extant upon the order; it is drawn from several early ecclesiastical traditions 
connected with the apostolic authorship or origin of the gospels. Mt, as 
composed by Matthew the taxgatherer for the Jewish Christians of Palestine, 
is supposed to precede Mk, which was associated with Peter’s subsequent 
preaching at Rome, just as Lk wasconnected with Paul’s preaching. C repre- 
sents an order of the Western church, and there is internal evidence to suggest 
that the archetype of Codex Bezz had the gospels in this order, its present order 
(D) being due to a later scribe (cp. Dom Chapman in ZVW, 1905, 339-346). 

The division and arrangement of the gospels thus appear to have been 
determined partly on chronological grounds, partly from considerations of 
internal value or even of size, partly from ecclesiastical ideas of the author’s 
rank, and partly from arbitrary fancies—or, at any rate, from what seem 
arbitrary and unintelligible to a modern. All these features are further 
illustrated in the disposition of the Pauline and catholic epistles. 

(c) The Pauline epistles are arranged as follows :— 


A* B ct D E F 
- oe 00 len as . 
4 secieeed | αὶ £ 
βὰ ἘΠ ΜΗ ΞΕ ΕΣ: ce. (elk ἃ 
Ε § | 92253 ΕἸ Ὁ καὶ 
ΠΩ o -- om oa ag 8 
Ro a BESSE 8 [ἢ § 3 
8 # Bago 5 ave Ε 8 
gs | § | geeecaess| & 
Ξ Ξ | ἔδεβδς ες Κ 3 
Ξ a 14 5 
Rom Rom Rom Rom 
Corr Corr Corr Corr 
Gal Gal . Eph Gal 
Eph Eph Thess Eph 
Phil see Gal Thess 
Col a Phil Phil 
Thess Tim Col Col 
Tim Tit Tim | [*‘ postea singul- 
Tit Col Tit aribus personis 
Phim Phim | Phim scripsit, ne ex- 


cederet num- 
erum_septem 
ecclesiarum”] ᾿ 

| 


* The order Gal, Co, Ro seems to have also prevailed, possibly after 
Marcion, in the early Syriac canon (as in Efraem). 

+ Athanasius and Council of Laodicea, like NA, insert Heb between Thess 
and Tim; in the Bohairic version it also follows 2 Th, though the Fayyumic 
and Sahidic (perhaps on account of its size) place it after 2Co. Augustine, like 
Isidore of Spain (7th cent.), puts Col between Thess and Tim; and Cassiodorus, 
reversing the order of Eph and Phil, also places Heb between Thess and Tim. 


ARRANGEMENT OF WRITINGS 17 


Ἃ 

The position of Philem after Col in A and D is natural, but the distinction * 
of ecclesiastical and private epistles, which dominates B, C, E, and F, tended 
to throw Philem not only near but after Tim and Tit on account of its brevity 
(asin C, E). Thusit is uncertain whether Marcion’s order put Philem after 
Phil (so Tert. adv. Marc. v.) or before it (Epiph. Ze”. xlii.), The priority 
of Rom in C, D, and E was due partly to its size, partly to the prestige of 
the Roman church. 

The position of Hebrews within the Pauline corpus is usually ¢ between 
the ecclesiastical and the private epistles (Eastern Church) or after the latter 
(Western Church). Luther threw Heb, Jas, Judas, and Apoc to the end 
of his bible with the curt remark: ‘‘bisher haben wir die rechten gewissen 
hauptbiicher des NT gehabt, diese vier nachfolgende aber haben vor zeytten 
ein ander ansehen gehabt.” 

(4) The canonical arrangement of the catholic epistles throws even 
less light on their origin, or even upon the traditions which grew 
up round them in the early church. They were tabulated in order as 
follows :— 


A B ct D E F§ 
Mes 80 mite ce mse ev . e000 ones e 

ΞΕ ΘΙ ἍΝ | me ΞΕ τ ἘΞ Sa 4 
mosSess ag £8 SA Qa a 
BSaoes- 4 Ee gee Ὃς. ὃ δ ς < 
Sgs-sa Ss og Ὁ Ὁ = ΞῈ Νὴ 
See aa ae oA S44 By g 
ῳ ao 465 5G “AD με} δ SH Se ky = 
τ Goad ὦ Cal ie 00 > OES Ss = 
me oaac . Lar 3 CRE Eas a Ἑ 
"Or way mo wn ὦ ᾧ 5.4 Ξ ΣΝ S 
egegageag| Ess | ge03 | 2859 | ey ὃ 
HOZAS<43 2.90 £800 TS 28 ἘΠῚ I 
x Ό ὅ - a” Re 
Jas 1 Pt 1 Pt 1 Pt 1 Pt I Jn 

1 Pt 2 Pt 2 Ρὲ 2 Pt 2 Pt 2 Jn 

2 Ρι 1 Τὴ Jas 1Jn Jas 3 Jn 

1Jn 2Jn 1 Jn 2jn Judas 1 Pt 

2Jn 3 Jn 2Jn 3Jn I Jn 2 Pt 

3Jn Jas 3Jn Judas 2Jn Judas 
Judas Judas Judas Jas 3 Jn Jas 


* It is explicitly stated in Murat. Canon and by Victorinus that Paul 
wrote to seven churches, as John did, the seven representing the one 
catholic church. 

t Occasionally, however, after 2 Co and before Gal (so, ¢.g., Sahidic 
version) or Eph (Theodore Mops.). 

t Pope Damasus 1. (4th cent.), who follows this order, disting-shed 
2 and 3 Jnas “‘alterius Johannis presbyteri epistolc.” 

§ Catalogus Mommsenianus (4th cent.), which follows F, omits Judas and 
Jas. The ‘‘una sola,” which is appended in one of its MSS to Jn and Pt, 
represents an early gloss which protests against the canonicity of 2-3 Jn 
and 2 P, not acomment upon Jas and Judas, which have been accidentally 
omitted (Belser, Zén/. 727). See Gregory’s Canon and Text of NT, 
271-272. 

2 


18 PROLEGOMENA 


Owing to the length of time which elapsed before the seven catholic 
epistles succeeded in winning ecclesiastical recognition, and owing to the 
variety of their authors as well as to the obscurity which besets the origin of 
almost all in the traditions of the church, no tradition of their respective 
order or chronological arrangement is either early or reliable. Thus, the 
priority of Peter in B is due to hierarchical reasons (Jerome, acc, to Cassiod. 
Inst. Div. Litt. 11, put the Petrine epp. before the Pauline, next to the 
gospels). B passed into the Roman church through the Council of Trent. 
A represents a common and even earlier Eastern arrangement. For the 
priority of Jas, cp. Eus. A. &. ii. 23, 24 (οὗ ἡ πρώτη τῶν ὀνομαζομένων 
καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται) ; but the order (Jas, Pt, Jn) probably is no 
more than an ecclesiastical reflection of Gal 2°, and it possesses as little 
independent historical value as B. 

By the time of Eusebius, who first mentions the seven so-called catholic 
epistles (H. E. ii, 23, cp. vi. 14), the Eastern church in particular had 
reserved the term catholic, as a literary designation, for a group of seven 
early Christian writings which, with more or less unanimity, had been accepted 
as apostolic and canonical. The sense of the term, in this connection, is 
equivalent to encyclical or general. As distinguished from Paul’s epistles, 
these were supposed to be addressed either to Christendom in general or to a 
wide circle of Christian churches. The second century anti-Montanist 
Apollonius (as cited in Eus. 47. £. v. 18. 5) describes how Θεμίσων. . . 
ἐτόλμησεν, μιμούμενος τὸν ἀπόστολον, καθολικήν τινα συνταξάμενος ἐπιστολήν, 
κατηχεῖν μὲν τοὺς ἄμεινον αὐτοῦ πεπιστευκότας, συναγωνίζεσθαι δὲ τοῖς τῆς 
κενοφωνίας λόγοις, βλασφημῆσαι δὲ εἰς τὸν κύριον καὶ τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ τὴν 
ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν. Themison was a Montanist leader at Cumane, but we 
have no further information about his ecclesiastical or literary career. It is 
plain, however, that καθολική in this connection means neither canonical nor 
orthodox, but cecumenical or general. 

The extant fragment of the Latin version of Clement’s HyJotyposes (see 
Zahn’s Forschungen, iii. pp. 134f.) proves that, while he reckoned Clemens 
Romanus and Barnabas* as apostolic, he only commented on four of the 
catholic epistles, viz. 1 P, Judas, 1 Jn and 2 Jn. These four represent 
the nucleus of the corpus catholicum. The latter three alone are 
included in the Muratorian Canon, while Ireneus knew 1 P, I Jn, and 
2 Jn, and Tertullian 1 P, 1 Jn, and Judas. Tertullian’s silence on 
2 Jn may be as accidental as that of Irenzus upon Judas; but even Origen, 
the first of the church fathers to vouch for all the seven catholic epistles, 
puts 2 and 3 Jn, Judas, 2 P, and Ja, into the second class of ἀντιλεγόμενα 
or ἀμφιβαλλόμενα. 

More than once the further question rises, did the formation of the Canon 
exert any influence upon the original form and text of the early Christian 
writings which were thus gathered into a collection of sacred books for the 
purposes of the church? Did the canonical process involve any editing? 
and if so, where, and to what extent? Higher criticism and textual criticism 
interlace, in problems of this nature. Rohrbach’s hypothesis about the lost 


* Origen also reckoned this a καθολικὴ ἐπιστόλη (c. (εἰς. i, 63), and se 
did the Catalogus Claromontanus, 


ARRANGEMENT OF WRITINGS 19 


ending of Mark, Harnack’s on the titles of the catholic epistles, and the 
widespread theories on Romans and 2 Corinthians, are instances in point. 
It is also a fair question, whether the text of Paul’s epistles may not have 
been slightly ‘‘ catholicised ” for the purpose of the canon These problems, 
however, fall to be noticed below, in connection with the respective writings. 
All that can be premised is that the canonical editing, which added titles to 
several of the writings, may quite well have gone further in the interests of 
liturgical edification. 


As the plan of this volume departs from the canonical 
arrangement, it will be useful at this point to outline the course 
followed in grouping the various documents. 

The literature dating from the early decades of the Christian 
movement may be called “Epichristian”—to borrow a con- 
venient term from de Quincey.* As it happens, the extant 
fragments of this literature consist almost entirely of letters 
written by the apostle Paul. The period includes, however, 
the rise of the primitive evangelic material, which afterwards 
was worked up into the synoptic gospels. Collections of logia 
may in some cases be traced even within Paul’s epistles; one 
of them, the Q-source of Matthew and Luke, certainly is 
contemporaneous with him. Though none has survived 
in its original form, it would be an unbalanced estimate of 
the epi-christian period and its literature which would 
identify the latter with the correspondence of the great 
apostle. 

In form, at any rate, the historical literature stands by itself. 
The use of the epistle for religious purposes did not originate 
with Paul, though he was the first to popularise it within 
Christianity. The special traits of a gospel, however, as we 
find them in the synoptic writers, are not anticipated in the 
earlier biographical memoirs or monographs or ἀρεταλόγαι of 
ancient literature. On this account alone the four books of the 
historical literature demand a chapter to themselves. From 


* In his essay on the Essenes he invents the adjective in order to describe 
primary elements and movements in Christianity which first matured in the 
generation immediately succeeding the lifetime of Jesus Christ. ‘*That 
particular age or generation (of twenty or thirty years, suppose) which 
witnesses the first origin of any great idea, system, discovery, or revelation, 
rarely indeed witnesses the main struggle and opening rush of its evolution. 
Exactly as any birth promises vast results for man, it may be expected to 
slumber silently. Then suddenly kindling. and spreading by ratios continually 
accelerated, it rushes into the fulness of life with the hurry of a vernal resurrec 
tion in Sweden.” 


20 PROLEGOMENA 


the standpoint of literary criticism, they represent a new 
departure. As they followed Paul’s correspondence chronologic- 
ally, they may be studied next to the apostle’s letters and 
epistles, the more so that the origin and the significance of the 
so-called Pauline elements which they contain constitute one of 
the problems which beset the task of estimating the extent to 
which the gospels reflect the common Christianity of the 
primitive church in reproducing the sayings and deeds of 
Jesus. 

So far as the NT is concerned, this period, 2.6. the half 
century after A.D. 70,* has also thrown up a number of com- 
positions which the later church, in framing its Canon, grouped 
either as Pauline or as “‘catholic” epistles. It is customary 
in most manuals of Introduction to treat the former under the 
Pauline correspondence, even when they are recognised to be 
sub-Pauline, and to discuss the latter separately. This method 
may be defended on the score of practical convenience; but 
even when adopted in order to facilitate reference and to 
avoid confusion, it has grave drawbacks. It is better to 
regard all these sub-Pauline writings, from the standpoint 
of literary criticism, under the general title of pastorals 
and homilies. The introduction of a classification such as 
that of the “catholic epistles” is a much later and artificial 
arrangement. 

Any disposition of these homilies and pastorals is more or 
less provisional. Their chronological succession, their literary 
relationships, and even the schools of thought or localities to 
which they might be referred, are too insecure to afford any 
basis for an arrangement which would correspond to the little 
that is known about their situation. I have put Judas and 
2 Peter immediately after 1 Peter, since, although Judas differs 
from 1 Peter, 2 Peter depends on both, and Judas lies chrono- 
logically between the two. A second subdivision is headed by 
Ephesians, which is also allied to 1 Peter; in its wake we may 
range the three epistles to Timotheus and Titus, since they, 
too, bear Paul’s name. Hebrews again, like Ephesians, breathes 
an atmosphere in which the Pauline ideas are being transmuted 


* It is totally unhistorical to describe the age between the death of the 
apostles and the middle of the second century as an unproductive pericd, 
whose practical tasks resembled those of the post-Reformation era, when it 
was men’s chief business, as Martin Chemnitz put it, parta ἐμέν, 


ARRANGEMENT OF WRITINGS 21 


into a form approximating to the later transformation in the 
Fourth gospel. With it the homily or tract of James may be 
placed, for lack of any more appropriate position. Finally, the 
two little pastorals written by John the presbyter lead up 
naturally to the Apocalypse. In literary form, the Apocalypse 
is partly allied to the pastorals and homilies, but the uniqueness 
of its contents justifies the special position assigned to it as 
the only one of the early Christian apocalypses which eventu- 
ally managed to retain a foothold inside the Canon. The 
Fourth gospel has formal affinities both to the pastorals and 
to the historical literature; here again, however, the distinctive 
characteristics of the document merit isolated treatment. The 
anonymous homily or pastoral which bears the canonical title 
of “ First John” will be discussed, for the sake of convenience, 
in the wake of the Fourth gospel, with which its affinities are 
closest, instead of in its proper class. 


The chief complete commentaries on the NT are :—Beza’s Anmnotationes 
(1565); Aretius, Commentariz (Paris, 1607); Grotius, Azmnotationes (1644) ; 
Alberti’s Observationes philologice in sacros Nout Federis libros (1725); 
Hardouin’s Commentarius (1741); de Beausobre’s Remargues historiques, 
critiques, et philologiques sur le NT (1742); Bengel’s Gnomon (1742); 
Rosenmiiller’s Scholia (1777); H. E. G. Paulus (1800-1804), J. O. Thiess 
(1804-1806), Kuinoel (1807-1818), 5. T. Blomfield’s Greek Testament 
(London, 1829); J. Gossner (Berlin, 1827-1830); E. Burton’s Greek Testa- 
ment (Oxford, 1831); Alford ; C. Wordsworth; and A. Bisping’s Handbuch 
(1867-1876). 


ΠῚ. 


LITERARY SOURCES OF NT. 


A New Testament* implies an Old. The New Testament 
writings, even separately, presuppose the authority no less than 
the existence of the older γραφή of the Jews, by means of which 
Paul justified the principles of the Gentile mission, and the 
evangelic tradition enriched as well as verified its outline of Jesus 
the messiah. It was the analogy of the OT which contributed, 
together with the growing prestige of early Christian apostolic 


* Tertullian, using zzs¢rumentum in its juristic sense of a written authority 
or proof, distinguishes the OT, as zmstrumentum Judaice litere, from the 
NT as the zustrumentum predicationis or Christiane litera (Ronsch, Das 
NT Tertullians, 1871, 47-49). 


22 PROLEGOMENA 


writings as apostolic * (cp. Képpel in SX., 1891, 123f.), to the 
formation of a NT. 

Eusebius recognises a providential circumstance in the 
composition of the LXX. Had it not been for this version, he 
observes, ‘‘ we should not have got from the Jews those oracles 
(ra παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς λόγια, cp. Ro 32), which they would have hidden 
away from us in jealousy” (Eus. Praep. Evang. 349 c). The 
argument is that since the OT prophecies were to prove 
essential to the preaching of Christ throughout the world, God 
had thus arranged for the accurate translation and wide diffusion 
of oracles which would witness incontrovertibly to his Son. 
This standpoint was that of the early church as a whole. To 
the OT they appealed for proofs of their doctrine of Jesus 
Christ. Their earliest theoretic interest was the demonstration 
from OT prophecies that Jesus was the true messiah. In the 
case of Paul, the author of Matthew, and the writer of Hebrews, 
the extent to which the original Hebrew text was employed in 
quotations becomes a problem for exegesis, but in the main the 
LXX was more convenient. More than once, 4.9. in Hebrews 
and Paul, the argument turns upon some pivot in the LXX 
text. Several times, 6.9. in Matthew, Barnabas, and Justin, the 
so-called proofs are simply illustrations, and not always verv 
happy illustrations, of the doctrine in question, while the OT 
text could also furnish upon occasion material for the stories 
as well as for the sayings in the gospels. The main point is, 
however, that the early church steadily clung to the OT, 
despite the hostility of the Jews, the contempt of the Marcionites 
and certain gnostic sects who repudiated the OT, and the 
difficulties in which its interpretation often plunged the Christian 
teacher and apologist. 


On the strong influence of the LXX upon the Greek world outside 
Judaism, and its value as an instrument of the Christian propaganda, see 
Harnack. SBBA., 1902, 508 f., WAC. i. 279 f., 284f. ; and Deissmann, Veue 
Jahrbiicher fiir das klass. Alterthum (1903), 161f. (on ‘die Helleniesierung 
des semit. Monotheismus’), 


* The impulse to keep up communication of some sort with the apostolic 
base was not confined to Catholic Christians. The Gnostics shared this 
instinct. It found expression in their repeated efforts (a) to attach them- 
selves to the traditions of some apostle or apostolic disciple, (6) to interpret 
allegorically (and edit) some apostolic writing, and to compose (c) gospels of 
their own (cp. Eus. 4. &., ili. 25. 6-7). 


LITERARY SOURCES 23 


Ignatius (ad Phi?. 8*) declares he once heard some people saying (ὅτι ᾽Εὰν 
uh κτλ.), ‘If I do not find it ἐν τοῖς ἀῤχείοις, I do not believe (it) ἐν τῷ 
εὐαγγελίῳ." When he replied, ‘‘ It ἐς written,” they retorted, ‘‘That is 
just the question (πρόκειται). Td ἀρχεῖα (ἀρχαῖα) here means the OT, 
which Ignatius claims to be in line with the gospel. It is unnecessary and 
awkward to put ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ in apposition to τοῖς ἀρχείοις, taking 
πιστεύω in an absolute sense (so Zahn, Funk), or to follow the ingenious 
emendation of A. N. Jannaris (Class. Rev., 1903, 24-25), who prefers to 
read ὅ,τι ἐὰν for ὅτι Hav, and πρόσκειται (=mpooréderra) for πρόκειται, so 
that the passage would run: ‘‘ For I heard certain persons saying, Whatever 
I find not in the records, in the gospel, I believe not. And when I said to 
them, It is written, they answered, It is added.” The latter interpretation 
would refer to the corruption of the gospel text. But the comparison of the 
OT and the Christian propaganda is inherently more probable. 


Three considerations have to be borne in mind in this 
connection : 

(i.) Even the LXX was not employed literally. The early 
church used the OT in many cases not as it lies before the 
modern reader, but in the light of the luxuriant midrashic inter- 
pretation which gathered round it during the later Judaism. 
Allowance has to be made repeatedly for this factor, in estimating 
the form and contents of early Christian traditions.* There isa 
partial analogy in the influence of Milton upon the later interpre- 
tation of Genesis; but even this gives no adequate idea of the 
extent t to which, not simply in the field of eschatology and 
apocalyptic, the letter of the OT was embellished and modified 
by midrashic speculations. 

(ii.) The composite OT quotations in the NT as well as in 
the early Christian literature from Barnabas and Melito to 
Cyprian’s Zestimonia especially, render it highly probable that 
florilegia and catenae of OT passages were in circulation. A 
pre-Christian origin for such excerpts is not impossible; the 
size of the OT would make it convenient for short manuals of 
this kind to be drawn up for the purpose of teaching and 
propaganda. But this need would be intensified when the 

* On the midrashic elements, ¢.g., in Stephen’s speech (Ac 7), see # Bz. 
4791; the traces in Josephus are collected by Bloch (Dze Quellen des 
Flavius Josephus, 1879, pp. 20-51), the Philonic by L. Treitel in Monatsschrift 
fiir Geschichte und Wiss. des Judentums (1909), 28 f., 159 f. 

+ Thus the tradition of the Asiatic elders (Iren. v. 33. 3-4) about the 
fertility of the earth in the latter days transferred to Jesus a midrashic prophecy, 
perhaps from Apoc. Bar. (25%) 29°, or from a source common to that apocalypse 


and Papias (a Hebrew midrash on the Blessing of Isaac, J. R. Harris, 477. 
1g00, 499; cp. Hennicke’s H/VA. ii. 21). 


24 PROLEGOMENA 


controversy between Jews and Christians turned largely on the 
OT proof that Jesus was the true messiah. Following the 
contemporary habit, the early Christian propaganda would 
produce, or adapt for its own purpose, short collections of extracts, 
messianic and otherwise, for the use of those who had to argue 
from the OT. The internal evidence of the early Christian 
composite quotations, with their sequence of texts (e.g. Is 813 
and 2816 in Ro 98233 and 1 P 26), their special textual forms 
(e.g. 1 Co 2°), their editorial comments, and their occasional 
errors in the attribution of authorship (e.g. Mk 17%, Mt 27°19), 
converge on the conclusion that such manuals were in use even 
during the first century. The evidence of Barnabas, Justin 
Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria throws light back upon their 
predecessors in this respect. It is possible that early Christian 
writers occasionally used not only Greek /estimonia of this kind, 
but their Aramaic originals. Thus if, as is most likely, the 
combination of citations in Mk 17% is derived from a book of 
testimonia, that book was compiled upon rabbinic principles, and 
probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Rabbinic combinations 
of texts were made from a sense of similarity in words as well as 
in ideas, and it is only in the original of the Malachi and Isaiah 
passages that the clue to their association here is seen, viz. 
the unique phrase ὙΥ 735 (cp. Abrahams in Cambridge Biblical 
Essays, 1909, 179). In any case the deliberate and composite 
character of a number of early Christian quotations suggests 
that they are secondary, taken not from the originals, but from 
collections of proof-texts upon different subjects which were 
arranged in order, ¢.g., to illustrate topics like “ the forerunner,” 
“the sufferings of messiah,” “the call of the Gentiles,” etc. (cp. 
Harnack, HD. i. 175; Moffatt, HVT. 351, 617; and the author 
of The Logia of Papias, 1894, pp. v—Vil). 

The existence of such ¢estimonéa explains, ¢.g., the OT citations in Matthew 
(Allen, Stanton: GAD. ii. 344f.) as well as in Paul. The hypothesis, 
stated by Credner (Bettrdge zur EHinl. ii. 318f.) and Hatch (Assays in 


Biblical Greek, 1889, 203-214), has been raised to the level of strong 
probability by the repeated proofs led by Rendel Harris * (cp. e.g. Exp," ii. 


* Dr. Harris even finds in Ac 26% the headlines of such festimonia, 
awkwardly incorporated in the text. On the whole subject, cp. Elter’s essay, 
‘de gnomologiorum historia,’ in Byzant. Zettschrift, vii. 445 f. The later use 
of such excerpts in theological discussion is traced by Theodor Schermann in 
Die Geschichte der Florilegia vom V-VIII Jahrhundert (1904). 


LITERARY SOURCES 25 


385-409, vil. 63f.; Gospel of Peter, 86; Contemp. Review, Aug. 1895), and 
is widely accepted, ¢.¢. by Westcott (Hebrews, 476 f.), Vollmer (Die Altcest. 
Citate bet Paulus, pp. 38 f.), Clemen (Paulus, i. 96), Swete (/ntrod. to OT in 
Gk. 252), Jacquier (//V7. iii. 253-254), Sanday and Headlam (Romans, pp. 
264, 282), and Drummond (Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 
p. 365, ‘‘it is conceivable that there may have grown up, whether in writing 
or not, an anthology of passages useful in controversy, which differed more or 
less from the correct Greek translation” of the OT). 


(iii.) The religious life of a community is always enriched by 
the use of sources wider than the mere letter of their sacred 
codex. It is difficult to ascertain the precise limits of the Jewish 
OT Canon at this period, or to be sure how far they as well as 
the early Christians * employed extra-canonical writings; but, 
apart from this, the primitive Christian literature, including the 
NT, shows ample traces of dependence on written sources which 
lay outside the OT. In some cases direct quotation can be 
proved, though in the majority of instances the evidence does 
not warrant so direct a filiation. 


(a) ‘* The influence of Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than 
that of all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books taken together ” 
(Charles, Zhe Book of Enoch, pp. 41-49, where the evidence is summarised). 
It is only quoted directly in Judas 1.15 (=En 1° 54 27”), as by name in 
Barn 4° (cp. 164 ἡ γραφή: Ἐπ 8055:  ; cp. Veil in HVA. ii. 212, 228), but 
there are verbal echoes, ¢.g., in Hebrews (41*= En 9°, cp. 115), Mt 19°3(=En 
62°) and 265 (=En 382), Lk 16°(=En 63”), Jn 5” (=En 69”), Paul (1 Th 53 
=En 62‘ etc.), 1 P 319. (=En τοῦ δ 12:18) Ὁ and the Apocalypse (sasszm), 
The powerful influence of Enoch upon the eschatological traditions of pre- 
Christian Judaism naturally affected the early Christian literature along 
this line to an extent which no collection of parallels can fully bring out. 
For the use and prestige of the book in the early church during the first 
two centuries, see Harnack, ACZ, i. 852, ii. 1. 563f. The slighter Book 
of the Secrets of Enoch, a later but pre-Christian apocalypse, also helped to 
popularise conceptions such as that of the seven heavens (cp. Charles and 
Morfill’s edition, pp. xxxi f.), but itis not quoted by name in the early Christian 
literature, (4) Flakes of Ecclesiasticus, read as an edifying religious treatise, 


* On the early Christian use and editing of uncanonical Jewish literature, 
cp. E. Grafe’s Das Urchristenthum u. das Alte Testament (1906), pp. 39f., 
and Budde’s Der Kanon des AT, pp. 73f. 

+ Dr. Rendel Harris (Zx.° iv. 194-199) adds 1 P 1123 (=En 1? οὐκ els 
Thy viv γενεὰν διενοούμην ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ πόρρω οὖσαν ἐγὼ λαλῶ), conjecturing 
διενοοῦντο ‘for διηκόνουν in the former passage, as well as (2.2.5 iv. 
346-349) ᾿Ενώχ after ἐν ᾧ καὶ (ENWKAI [ENWX] TOIC) in 1 P 3”; 
cp. Clemen in £xf.° vi. 316 f., on ‘‘ The first epistle of Peter and the Book of 
Enoch,” and Hiihn’s die attest. Citate u. Reminiscenzen im NT, ii. pp. 125f., 
291. For a caveat on Paul and the Gospels, see Abbott’s Diat. 3353-3354- 


26 PROLEGOMENA 


lie far and wide over the surface of the church’s literature during the first 
two centuries, from James and Hermas to Origen and Clement of Alexandria 
(cp. Bleek, SK., 1853, 344f.; Werner, 7Q., 1872, 265f.). Not only does 
Clemens Romanus quote it (60!=Sir 211), like the Didaché (4°=Sir 4%!) and 
Barnabas (19°), but there are data in the gospels which prove ‘‘that both 
Wisdom and Sirach were known to Matthew, Luke, John, or to collectors of 
Jogia of Jesus earlier than those gospels ; that Sirach especially was used by 
the author of the Magnificat [e.g. 17 =Sir 48", 1°2=Sir 1014], and that our 
Lord seems to have made use of both books, Sirach more probably than 
Wisdom ” (Adeney in DCG. i. tota; see, further, J. H. A. Hart’s Zeclest- 
asticus, The Gk. Text of Codex 248, 1909). One of the most interesting and 
significant cases is that of Mt 118°, which contains more than one 
reminiscence not only of the OT, but of Sirach (¢.g. 51}" 10-1% 11. 28, 2419-22, 
674-25, 5176-27, 62); see Brandt’s Evang. Geschichte und der Ursprung des 
Christenthums, 576f., with Loisy’s note in Les Evangiles Synoptiques, i. p. 
913, and Harnack’s BNT. ii. 304f. Further cases occur in 44=Mt 5%, 
4h =k 68, 74=Mt 6’, m8 =Lk 12903? = Lk 147%, 5555: Met 6m Jos 
(6%=Sir 247), 14%=Sir. 2"), and in Paul'(e.¢; 74=Ro 12%, 8°5—Gal Gage 
ΞΞΖ ΘΟ 6" 144— ROM Asa ΤΟ ΞΞΕΟ ΤΕ 5 τ i ONT 2 oO aa 
Ecclesiasticus was used not only by Jewish writers like Philo, the authors 
of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and The Psalms of Solomon, 
as well as in the rabbinic literature (see Schechter, /QR., 1891, 682-706),* 
but by Christian writers in the primitive and early church, alike in the 
East and in the West (cp. T. André’s Les apocryphes de [ancien Testament, 
1903, pp. 290-297); Clement of Alexandria commented on it as an OT 
scripture. (c) Next to Enoch and Sirach, no writing of the later Judaism 
had such a vogue within the early church as the Wisdom of Solomon, 
which, even by those who, like Origen and Augustine, doubted its Solomonic 
authorship, was almost invariably regarded as a divine and prophetic 
scripture (cp. Schiirer, G/V.* iii. pp. 381f.). It is ranked with the 
catholic epistles in the Muratorian Canon,t which also bears witness to 
the early (Jerome: ‘‘nonnulli scriptorum ueterum hunc esse Juda’ Philonis 
affrmant”’) belief that it was composed by Philo; the words (‘‘ ad améczs 
Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta”) are probably a mistranslation of ὑπὸ 
Φίλωνος. Proofs of its use and authority drift right across the early Christian 
literature. The earliest are in Paul (cp. Bleek, SA., 1833, pp. 340-344, 
and E. Grafe’s essay on ‘‘das Verhiltniss ἃ. paulin. Schriften zur Sapientia 
Solomonis,” in 7144. pp. 251-286), whose ideas upon predestination, the 
nature of idolatry, and heathenism, in Ro 17 and 915" especially, reveal a 
study of this bookt (cp. Resch, Paudintsmus, pp. 608-609; Sanday and 
Headlam’s ‘‘ Romans,” 700. pp. 51f., 266f.). Echoes of it are audible 
in Hebrews (1*=Sap 7%, 3%*=Sap 13°", 444=Sap 7** etc.);, 1 Peters 
Sap 3)% 4? 8°, 17=Sap 35 etc.), and James, while Clemens Romanus twice 
alludes to passages from it (34=Sap 253, 27°=Sap 11” 121%), Beyond a 


* For Akiba, see Graetz’s Gnosticismus und Judenthum, pp. 119 f. 

+ The conjecture ¢ for e¢ is improbable. 

t For another literary derivation of Ro 1%8!, see Rendel Harris, Zhe 
Teaching of the Apostles (1887), pp. 82-87. 


LITERARY SOURCES 27 


phrase or two—e.g. 155 (τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπαιτηθεὶς xpéos)=Lk 12%—there is 
no clear trace of Sap in the synoptic gospels. But 91 (ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν 
λόγῳ gov)=Jn 18 may be a reminiscence, as also 8'%*!=Jn 138. We may 
compare also the functions of the Spirit in 16° (ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ 
ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ περὶ κρίσεως) with Sap 138 (δοκιμαζομένη τε 
ἡ δύναμις ἐλέγχει τοὺς ἄφρονας . . . ἅγιον γὰρ πνεῦμα ἐλεγχθήσεται ἐπέλθουσης 
ἀδικίας), the reiteration of ἔλεγχος as the doom of the wicked (Sap 18 4” 
185=Jn 3°), the reproof of an uneasy conscience by goodness (Sap 214 
ἐγένετο ἡμῖν els ἔλεγχον ἐννοιῶν ἡμῶν. βαρύς ἐστιν ἡμῖν καὶ βλεπόμενος. .. 
καὶ ἀλαζονεύεται πατέρα Oebv=Jn 3° and 77 also 5'8 ἐζήτουν οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι 
ἀποκτεῖναι αὐτόν, ὅτι. . . πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν), the collocation of 
death and the devil (Sap 24%=Jn 843), the inscrutability of heavenly things 
(Jn 3125 =Sap g!8 τὰ δὲ ἐν οὐρανοῖς rls ἐξιχνίασεν ;), the claim of the righteous 
to know God (Sap 27% ἐπαγγέλλεται γνῶσιν ἔχειν Oeoi=Jn 855 72%), the 
safety of the righteous in God’s hand (Sap 3!=Jn 10%°), the knowledge of 
the truth (Sap 38=Jn 8*!), the authority of evil magistrates (68*=Jn 19°), 
love and obedience (Sap 6% of wisdom, ἀγάπη δὲ τήρησις νόμων αὐτῆς -ε 
Jn 15 4, 14 =1 Jn 5° αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ 
τηρῶμεν), knowledge of God equivalent to eternal life (153=Jo 178), and 
knowledge of divine things as an endowment of the Spirit (93!7=Jn 162-14), 
Ewald, an excellent judge in matters of style, felt in the nervous energy of 
the author of Wisdom, as well as in the depth of some of his conceptions, a 
certain premonition of the Fourth gospel, ‘‘like a warm rustle of the 
spring, ere its time is fully come.” (4) The use of Philo in Barnabas (cp. 
Heinisch, Der Einfluss Philos auf die alteste christliche Exegese, 1908, pp. 
36f.) is not quite so clear as in Clemens Romanus and Josephus,* but the 
reminiscences in Hebrews (cp. especially Siegfried’s Philo von Alex. als 
Ausleger des AT, 321f.; Pfleiderer, Urc. ii. 198 f. ; von Soden, HC. iii. 5-6; 
Ménégoz, La Théologie de Pépitre aux Heébreux (1895), 197f.: Rendall, 
Theology of Hebrew Christians, pp. 58-62, and Biichel in SX., 1906, 572 f.) 
are obvious; ¢.g. the same use of the allegorical method, the same belief in 
the verbal inspiration of the LXX, and the same phraseology about the 
Logos Τ (though the conception is naturally different). By a characteristically 
Philonic method (cp. Siegfried’s PAz/o, pp. 179f.) the writer finds a religious 
significance in the very silence of the OT; thus the absence of any allusion 
to the parents of Melchizedek (7%) is as pregnant to him as the similar lack 
of any reference to Sarah’s mother is to the Alexandrian thinker (σης 
rerum div. her. 12; de ebrietate, 14), and the titles of Melchizedek suggest 
religious truths to him no less than to Philo (/eg. alleg. iii. 25) and to 
Josephus (Bel/. Jud. vi. 10, Ant. i. το. 2). The quotation in 13° occurs 
only, in this form, in de Conf. Ling. 32; and there are verbal echoes, ¢.g., in 
3! (=de Somniis, i. 38, ὁ μὲν δὴ μέγας ἀρχιερεύς), 37 (=de plant. 16 ad 
finem), 3° (=“g. alleg. iii. 81, Μωσῆς μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ἐστὶ πιστὸς ἐν 
ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ), 58 (=de Somniis, ii. 15, ὃ παθὼν ἀκριβῶς ἔμαθεν), 5° (=de agric. 

* Cp. Harnack, 462. i. 1. 859 f. ; Windisch, Die Frimmighett Philos und 
thre Bedeutung fiir das Christentum (1909), pp. 96-135. 

+ On the transference of the Philonic Logos-predicates to Christ, see Aal’s 
Der Logos, ii. pp. 38, 


28 PROLEGOMENA 


22, ἑτέροις αἴτιος σωτηρίας γενόμενος), 7}.2" (τε ας. alleg. iil. 25), and τοῦ 
ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν (=de plant. 15, de vit. Mos. ili. 10). The allegorical 
method of interpretation (cp. Holtzmann in ARW., 1900, 341f., and 
Leipoldt, GX. i. pp. 20f.) which received a powerful impetus from the 
Alexandrian Judaism, presupposed a keen appreciation of the letter of the 
ancient Scriptures, which was not confined to Hebrews; cp. 4.5. the 
haggadie and genuinely Philonic touches in the haggada of 1 Co ro!}, 
2 Co 37-18, Gal 475, the pressing of the singular in Gal 316: 9 (cp. Ro 48: 16. 
98) in the Philonic spirit of attaching significance to numbers, and a passage 
like 1 Co 95:1 (cp. Philo, de viet. offer. 1, ob yap ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλόγων ὁ νόμος, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν νοῦν καὶ λόγον ἐχόντων). Room must be left, however, for 
the possibility that in Hebrews, as even in Paul, this allegorical method of 
treating the OT may have been due as much to the well-known predilections 
of contemporary Stoicism as to Philonism or rabbinism. (4) The possibility 
that Josephus has been used by some NT writers is raised in connection with 
2 Peter, the Fourth gospel, and Luke. (i.) In the preface to the An¢cguities 
(§ 4) he observes that Moses considered it of primary importance Θεοῦ φύσιν 
κατανοῆσαι (2 P 14) in order to promote the virtue of his readers (els ἀρετῆς 
λόγον, cp. 2 P 18). While other legislators followed myths (rots μύθοις 
éEaxodovOjoavres=2 P 118 οὐ μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες), Moses held that God 
possessed perfect virtue (τὴν ἀρετὴν ἔχοντα τὸν θεόν = 2 P 1), so that the 
Pentateuch contains nothing πρὸς τὴν μεγαλειότητα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀνάρμοστον 
(=2 P 116). Similarly in the last address of Moses (iv. 8. 2), besides 
isolated expressions and phrases like τοιάδε (= 2 P 1” τοιᾶσδε), μνήμην 
(=2 P 15), νομίμων τῶν παρόντων (= 2 P 12), εὐσεβεία (= 2 P τὸ 31), 
καταφρονεῖν (= 2 P 29), and κοινωνοὶ (= 2 P 14), Moses declares δεῖ με τοῦ 
ζῆν ἀπελθεῖν (= 2 P14)... οὐ μέλλω (ΞΞ 2 P 113) βοηθὸς ὑμῖν ἔσεσθαι. . . 
δίκαιον ἡγησάμην (=2 P 118 δίκαιον δὲ ἡγοῦμαι), warns them against the 
abuse of ἐλευθερία (2 Ῥ 2.9), and uses ἔξοδος and ἀνάμνησις and βεβαία 
close together (cp. 2 Ρ 1015 1), Compare further εὐάλωτοι with ἅλωσιν 
(2 P 212), Bell. Jud. vii. 8. 7 with 2 P 17°, ii. 9. 1 with λήθην λαβών (2 Ῥ 1°), 
iii. 9. 3 (τολμηταὶ καὶ θανάτου καταφρονοῦντες = 2 Ρ 2)°), Antig. iv. 6. 7-8 
with 2 P ) 2, and xi. 6. 12 (οἷς καλῶς ποιήσετε μὴ προσέχοντες) with 2 P 114 
(ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες) ; while 2 P 3% explicitly alludes to the Jewish 
legend (cp. Antzg. i. 2. 2; Bousset in ZVIV., 1902, 45) that Adam predicted 
the twofold destruction of the world by the deluge and by fire. Further 
linguistic proofs are led by Krenkel (Josephus u. Lucas, pp. 348f.) and 
Dr. E. A. Abbott (Zx.? iii. 49-63, Déat. 1116 f.), and rejected by 
Warfield (Southern Presbyterian Review, 1882, pp. 45f., 1883, pp. 390f.), 
Salmon (JV7. 497f.), Chase (DA. iii. 814), Zahn (77. ii. 291), and 
Mayor (Jude and 2 Peter, pp. cxxvii-cxxx). Farrar (Zxf.? iii. 401-423, 
Exp.* viii. 58-69), who recognises a literary connexion, inclines to place the 
dependence on the side of Josephus. The occurrence in Josephus of several 
unusual words and phrases which are characteristic of 2 Peter would not of 
itself be decisive, as some also occur in Philo and elsewhere. Even the 
common use of midrashic traditions does not involve literary filiation. But 


* Of the brazen serpent’s effect on the beholders (τοῖς θεασαμένοις, cp 


Jn 3"*). 


JOSEPHUS 29 


a number of the coincidences of language and style occur not only in the 
compass Οὐ two short paragraphs of Josephus, but in a sequence and 
connection which is not dissimilar; and, even after allowance is made for 
the widespread use of rhetorical commonplaces, these coincidences can 
hardly be dismissed as fortuitous. Their weight tells in favour of the 
hypothesis that the author of 2 Peter was familiar with Josephus,—an 
inference which is the more plausible as in any case the epistle belongs to 
the second century. (ii.) One indication of the connection between Josephus 
and the Fourth gospel occurs in Jn 4 (cf. Krenkel, of. czt. 347f.). Josephus 
(Ant. ii. 11. 1, developing Ex 2°) describes Moses as arriving at a city, 
καθεσθεὶς ἐπὶ τινος φρέατος ἐκ τοῦ κόπου καὶ τῆς ταλαιπωρίας ἠρέμει, μεσημβρίας 
οὔσης, οὐ πόρρω τῆς πόλεως, uses in the immediate context the term θρέμματα 
(Jn 4”), and (Azz. ii. 15. 3) employs the phrase ὑπὸ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας κεκοπωμέ- 
νων (cp. Jn 4° κεκοπιακὼς ἐκ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας). Cf., further, Jos. “4512. xii. I-10 
and xiii. 3. 4 withJn 4”, The curt tone of the discussion in 114% also answers 
to the tradition preserved by Josephus (2. /. ii. 8. 14), that ‘‘ the behaviour of 
the Sadducees to one another is rather rude, and their intercourse with their 
own party is as brusque as if they were talking to strangers” ; and in Antzg. 
ix. 14. 3 (cf. Jn 417), Josephus not only explains that each of the five nations 
of 2 Καὶ 17% who settled in Samaria brought a god of its own (ἕκαστοι κατ᾽ 
ἔθνος ἴδιον θεὸν els τὴν Σαμάρειαν κομίσαντες, πέντε δ᾽ ἦσαν xrd.), but that they 
denied the right of a Jew to expect any favour at their hands(=Jn 43). The 
words of 4” also recall Ant. xii. 1. 1 (the Jerusalemites τὸ wap’ αὐτοῖς ἱερὸν 
ἅγιον εἶναι λεγόντων . . . τῶν δὲ Σαμαρειτῶν els τὸ Γαριζεὶν ὅρος κελεύοντων) 
and xiii. 3. 4 (the quarrel of the Alexandrian Jews with the Samaritans of τὸ 
ἐν Ταριζεὶν ὄρει προσεκύνουν ἱερὸν οἰκοδομηθὲν κτλ.). The coincidence between 
1055 33 and Jos. 8. Δ i. 21. 10, where the street of Antioch in Syria is 
described as equipped πρὸς τὰς τῶν ὑετῶν ἀποφυγὰς ἱσομήκει στοᾷ, is of no 
importance, though Kreyenbiihl (ii. 498 f.) makes use of it as a local touch to 
prove his theory that the gospel was composed by Menander of Antioch ; 
the same may be said, ¢.g., of 19%= Ant. iii. 7. 4 (the high priest’s robe 
οὐκ ἐκ δυοῖν περιτμημάτων . . . φάρσος δ᾽ ὃν ἐπίμηκες ὑφασμένον κτλ.). 
(iii.) It is in relation to the Lucan writings, however, that the problem 
has been most keenly agitated (first by J. B. Ott, Spicclegium seu 
excerpta ex Flavio Josepho ad NT. illustrationem, 1741, and J. T. Krebbs, 
Observationes in NT. 6 Flavio Josepho, 1755). Apart from resemblances in 
vocabulary and style, which are not of primary significance, one or two 
of the statements common to both are worth noticing. Luke, ¢.g. dates 
the opening of John’s mission (312) in a.pD. 28 or 29 by Λυσανίου τῆς 
᾿Αβιληνῆς τετρααρχοῦντος ; but as Lysanias had been executed in 36 B.c., the 
alternatives are to postulate the existence of some younger Lysanias (so, ¢.g., 
Schirer, H/P. i. 2. 335 f., after Wieseler’s Beztrige zur Wurdigung d. 
Evangelien, 1869, 194f., and 5. Davidson, 7277. i. 214f.), or to assume a 
chronological inaccuracy on the part of Luke. In the latter case, the error 
may be explained from the fact that the territory of Lysanias retained his 
name even after his death (so, e.g., Wellhausen) ; or from Josephus, who in 
Ant, xx. 7. 138, relates that in A.D. 53, Agrippa 11. acquired among other 
territories (including Trachonitis) Abila, Λυσανίου δ᾽ αὕτη ἐγεγόνει τετραρχία. 
As in A.D. 37 it had been given to Agrippa I. (Amt. xviii. 6. 10), the theory 


30 PROLEGOMENA 


is that Luke (whose language resembles Am. xviii. 4. 6) inferred from 
Josephus that it was the tetrarchy of Lysanias when John the Baptist came 
forward. Apart from some such hypothesis, it is difficult to account for the 
mention of Lysanias and Abilene at all in this connection. The passage in 
Josephus, on the other hand, explains its collocation with Trachonitis and 
also the anachronism about Lysanias. So Keim, ii. 384 f., Krenkel (Josephus 
u. Lucas, 1894, 95-98), Schmiedel (Z4&z. 2840-2844), Burkitt (Gospel History 
and τίς Transmission, pp. 109f.), and Holtzmann (HC. i. p. 325: ‘‘der 
3. Evglst sich einigermaassen im Josephus umgesehen habe, ohne aber im ~ 
Stande gewesen zu sein, aus den zahllosen Notizen der weitlaufigen Schriften 
desselben ein klares Bild von der politischen Lage Palistinas zur Zeit Jesu 
zu gewinnen”). There may have been another Lysanias, but his existence is 
at best conjectural, and Josephus certainly knew nothing of him, In Ac 5% 
again, Luke makes Gamaliel speak thus to the council: 7 days gone by 
(πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν) ἀνέστη Gevdds λέγων εἶναι τινα ἑαυτόν . . « ὃς ἀνῃρέθη 
καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διελύθησαν. . . μετὰ τοῦτον ἀνέστη ᾿Ιούδας ὁ 
Γαλιλαῖος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ἀπογραφῆς καὶ ἀπέστησεν λαὸν ὁπίσω αὐτοῦ. 
The parallel passages in Josephus (Aw. xx. §. 1: When Fadus was procurator 
of Judcea, a charlatan named Θευδᾶς πείθει τὸν πλεῖστον ὄχλον. .. προφήτης 
γὰρ ἔλεγεν εἶναι. Fadus, however, dispatched a squadron of cavalry ἥτις 
. «+ πολλοὺς. . . ἀνεῖλεν ; and Ant. xx. 5. 2, πρὸς τουτοῖς δὲ καὶ ol παῖδες 
᾿Ιουδᾶ rod Ταλιλαίου ἀνήχθησαν τοῦ τὸν λαὸν ἀπό Ρωμαίων ἀποστήσαντος 
Κυρινίου τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας τιμητεύοντος) leave little reasonable doubt that both 
stories relate to the same Theudas, and, unless recourse is had to the des- 
perate expedient of conjecturing that the name in Josephus (Blass) or in 
Acts (B. Weiss) is a later interpolation, it is highly probable that Luke’s 
acquaintance with the passage in Josephus led him to mention Theudas and 
Judas loosely in an order which is not only inverted but out of keeping with 
the situation, since the revolt of Theudas did not take place till about at least 
ten years after Gamaliel is supposed to have spoken. The order in Josephus 
is natural; Luke’s is an inaccurate reflection of it,* as even the phraseology 
suggests, for the coincidences are too remarkable to be accidental in this case. 
“ΕΝ ἢ facile adducimur ut casui tribuamus Theudze Judzeque apud utrumque 
scriptorem junctam commemorationem ” (Blass). _Why Luke remembered the 
order and some of the phrases and yet attributed to Judas the fate of his sons, 
we can no longer explain ; but this difficulty does not invalidate the hypothesis, 
A third Lucan instance has been found in Ac 11%" = Ant, xx. 5. 2. 


JosEPHUS, LUKE. 


ἐπὶ τούτοις δὲ Kal τὸν μέγαν λιμὸν Ka- “AyaBos ἐσήμανεν. .. λιμὸν μεγάλην 
τὰ τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν συνέβη γενέσθαι, καθ᾽ ' μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι ἐφ᾽ ὅλην τὴν oiKov- 
ὃν καὶ ἡ βασίλισσα ‘Edévn πολλῶν | μένην, ἥτις ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου τῶν 
χρημάτων ὠνησαμένη σῖτον ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αι- | δὲ μαθητῶν καθὼς εὐπορεῖτο τις κτλ. 
γύπτου διένειμε τοῖς ἀπορουμένοις. 


* So Krenkel (οὐ. c##t. pp. 162--174), Schmiedel (7 δὲ. 5049-5055), and 
Burkitt (Gospel History and τίς Transmission, 109 f.), besides Wendt and 
H. J. Holtzmann in their editions of Acts (cp. Sonntag, SA., 1837, 622-652). 


LITERARY SOURCES 31 


The verbal resemblances here, however, are not significant. Descriptions of 
famine relief, as of revolt, must employ similar language. But if the former 
case of dependence be granted, there isa likelihood that Luke also preserves in 
this story another reminiscence of his younger contemporary. Other parallels 
occur, ¢.g., in the account of the disappearance of Moses in a cloud (Azz. iv. 
8. 38)=Ac 1°, the prologue Lk 1!-4= Agzon. i. 10, Lk 24-47= Vita 2, Lk τοῦ" 
=B. J. vii. § (Titus bemoaning the fate of Jerusalem), Ac 16%!°= Anz, xi. 8 
(Alexander’s vision), Ac 20% = 8, J. ii. 16 (Agrippa’s speech to the Jews). 
The whole question is argued, in favour of Luke’s dependence, by Keim 
(Aus dem Urchristentum, 1878, i. 1-21), Krenkel, Holtzmann (ZW7., 1873, 
85f., 1877, 535f., 1880, 121f.), Jiingst (Quellen d. Apgeschichte, 201 f.), 
Schmiedel (as above), Clemen (SX., 1895, 335 f., also Dze Apostelgeschichte, 
1905, pp. 15-21), and Burkitt; see, further, Cassel in Fortnightly Review 
(1877), 485-509, and SR. 605f. The opposite position is held by Schiirer 
(ZWT., 1876, 574f.), Gloel (Die juingste Krittk αἰ, Galaterbriefes, 64f.), 
Belser (7Q., 1895, 634 f., 1896, 1-78), Blass (SX., 1896, 459 f.), Ramsay (Was 
Christ born at Bethlehem? 1898, pp. 252f.), J. A. Cross (#7. xi. 538- 
540), Zahn (1277. ὃ 61), Jacquier (7V7. iii. 101-108), and Stanton (GHD. ii. 
263f.). The last-named inclines to admit the case for a knowledge of the 
Jewish War (273-274). (f) That a pre-Christian Apocalypse of Elijah 
(cp. Schiirer’s G/V.8 iii. 267 f. ; Harnack, ACL. i. 853f. ; Ropes, Spriiche Jesu 
pp. 19f.) was quoted in 1 Co 29 and Eph 514, has been known since Origen’s 
(tn Matth. 27°, ‘‘In nullo regulari libro hoc positum inuenitur, nisi in Secretis 
Eliz prophetz ”) allusion to the former passage (cp. Jerome on Is 644 and 
Epp. 57°) and the remark of Epiphanius (Aaer. 42, p. 478), πόθεν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ 
τὸ" διὸ καὶ λέγει" ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ THs παλαιᾶς δῆλον διαθήκης ; τοῦτο δὲ ἐμφέρεται 
παρὰ τῷ Hig) on the latter, for in 1 Co 23 Paul is not loosely citing Is 644 
(651°) (cf. Vollmer’s Alétes¢. Citate bez Paulus, 44-48, and W7A. 42-44), and it 
is impossible (cf. ACZ. ii. 1. 571-572) to suppose with Zahn (GK. ii. 8or 1.) 
that the patristic references are to a second century writing which was 
fabricated in order to clear up the ambiguous Pauline quotations. It is this 
apocalypse, and not 1 Co 2°, which is further quoted in Asc. Jsa. 1183, Clem. 
Rom. 34° and Clem. Alex. Protrept. x. 94. A fresh fragment has been 
discovered recently by de Bruyne (Revue Bénédictine, 1908, pp. 149f.) 
embedded in an apocryphal epistle of Titus (eighth cent. MS). The 
fragment begins as follows: ‘‘Denique testatur propheta Helias uidisse. 
Ostendit, inquit, mihi angelus domini conuallem altam quz uocatur gehenna, 
ardensque sulphore et bitumine ; et in illo loco sunt multe animz peccatorum 
et taliter ibi cruciantur diuersis tormentis” (whereupon follows a Dantesque 
description of the future punishments assigned to various classes of sinners, 
on the general lines of the Apocalypse of Peter). It is impossible to 
determine whether Paul (in 1 Co 295) regarded this apocalypse as γραφή, or 
simply quoted its language as that of a current religious writing, or cited it as 
canonical by an error of memory. The occurrence of a cognate citation in 
the Latin (and Slavonic) versions of Asc. /sa. 11% explains Jerome’s 
statement that the ‘‘ testimonium” of 1 Co 29 was contained in the Ascensio 
Isaie@ as well as in the Afocalypsis Elie. (g) Eph 5" has been variously 
referred to at: apocryphon of Jeremiah (Euthalius), to an apocryphal book 
cited inadvertently as γραφή (Meyer), to a peraphrase of Is 60! 19.320. or toa 


22 PROLEGOMENA 


Christianhymn. The last hypothesis (suggested by Theodoret, and advocated, 
¢.g., by Bleek and Storr) is plausible, on the score of the rhythmical struc- 
ture of the lines. But ὁ Χριστός (=the messiah) would not be improbable 
in a Jewish writing, and, even if it were, it might be conjectured that the 
writer of Ephesians substituted it for the ὁ θεός of the ogginal (Harnack). 
(4) Hermas (V7s. ii. 3. 4) quotes the book of Eldad and Modad (ἐγγὺς Κύριον 
τοῖς ἐπιστρεφομένοις, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ ᾿Ελδὰδ καὶ Μωδάτ, τοῖς προφητεύ- 
σασιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῷ λαῷ), and the προφητικὸς λόγος cited in 2 Clem. 1174 
(Clem. Rom. 235) is probably from the same source (so, ¢.g., Lightfoot, Spitta, 
Holtzmann), perhaps also the γραφή reproduced in Jas 455. To these have 
been added, though on precarious grounds, the citations in Clem. Rom. 462 
(γέγραπται yap* κολλᾶσθε τοῖς ἁγίοις, ὅτι ol κολλώμενοι αὐτοῖς ἁγιασθήσονται) 
and 17° (καὶ πάλιν [Moses] λέγει, ᾿Εγὼ δὲ εἶμι ἀτμὶς ἀπὸ κύθρας, cp. Jas 412), 
the latter of which Hilgenfeld prefers to assign to the lost conclusion of the 
Assumptio Mosis. It was a book of 400 στίχοι, which Nicephorus ranked 
with Enoch, etc., among the ἀπόκρυφα of the OT. According to rabbinic 
tradition (reproduced in the Palestinian Targums), Eldad and Modad 
(Nu 11-9) were humble men who received a greater measure of grace 
directly from God than the seventy elders; their prophetic gift was more 
lasting and far-reaching (it foresaw the attack of Gog and Magog), and, 
unlike the seventy, they reached the promised land. If this tradition repre- 
sents the spirit of the midrashic prophecy in question, the contents of the 
latter may be taken to tally with the above citations in the early Christian 
literature, as Spitta argues (Ure. ii. 121-123 ; see, further, Weinel, HVA. i. 
208 f., 229, and M. R. James, 7.5. ii. 3. 174 f.). (ἢ) The earliest quotation 
from Tobit is in 2 Clem. 16‘ where 128: is reproduced, though even closer 
citations occur in Polykarp, ad P&zl. τοῦ (=To 4” 12°) and Did 13 =To 
45). Origen and Clement of Alexandria quote it more than once by name 
as γραφή. Its presence in the Greek Bible helped to popularise it, together 
with other writings of this class, such as Judith (first referred to in early 
Christian literature by Clem. Rom. 55), among the early Christians, Catholic 
and Gnostic alike, though the Palestinian Jews appear to have excluded it 
from their Canon in the second century (Origen, ad Afric. 13: ᾿Εβραῖοι τῷ 
Τωβίᾳ ob χρῶνται οὐδὲ τῇ ᾿Τουδήθ" οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἑβραϊστί). 
(5) 2 Maccabees was evidently in the library of the author of Hebrews, as 
is plain from a passage like He 1133 ; cp. 4.5. 4=2 Mac 8%, 35 (ἄλλοι 
δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν Krv.)=6'% 8 (ἐπὶ τὸ τύμπανον) and 6% 7% 14 %—71.10, 
S=57 6! 10%, also 10%=2 Mac 6%, 127=2 Mac 64%, 13§=2 Mac ΤΟΣ 
etc. It was also known to Hermas (V2s. i. 3. 4, Mand. xii. 4. 2). (4) The 
Assumptio Mosis has not only preserved the legend mentioned in Jude ἢ, 
but supplied some of the phrases in v.'® of that epistle (cp. 5° erunt illis 
temporibus mirantes persone, 77 quzerulosi, 75 et manus eorum et mentes im- 
munda tractantes et os eorum loquetur ingentia); for other coincidences, 
cp. ¢.g. 17=2 (ὁ 1114, (ἢ The uncertainty attaching to the date and origin 
of the Διαθήκη ᾿Ιώβ renders any inferences from its use in or of the NT 
problematical. The probabilities, however, favour a pre-Christian period for 
its composition (so, ¢.g., Kohler in Semitic Studies in honour of Kohut, 1897, 
264-338, and Spitta, Ure. iii, 2. 141-206), with echoes in the epistle of 
James, 4.5. 19=Test. Job 4, 1°*=Test. Job 32-33, 41, 117=Test. Job 33, 


LITERARY SOURCES 33 


ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ αἰωνί ἐστιν τοῦ ἀπαραλλάκτου), 57=Test. Job 43, 54= 
Test. Job 12 (ἐργάτης εἶ ἄνθρωπος προσδοκῶν καὶ ἀναμένων σου τὸν μισθόν" 
ἀνάγκην ἔχεις λαβεῖν" καὶ οὐκ ἔων μισθὸν μισθωτοῦ ἀπομεῖναι), 5}1}-- Test. Job 
I and 26 (also 4), and 55-- Τεβί. Job 16, 14 (καὶ ἔψαλλον» αὐταῖς κτλ.). The 
evidence for the use of this midrash elsewhere in the NT is slight. The most 
striking coincidences perhaps are Lk 27=Test. Job 40, Apoc 2! (γίνου πιστὸς 
ἄχρι θανάτου, καὶ δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς fwijs)=Test. Job 4-5 (where, to 
the angel’s promise of ἃ στέφανος for his endurance, Job replies: ἄχρι θανάτου 
ὑπομείνω καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀναποδίσω), Apoc 778=Test. Job 5 (Job sealed by the angel 
before the devil attacks him), the occurrence of ἀκωλύτως as final (Ac 283!= 
Test. Job 45), of ra βάθη τοῦ κυρίου in Test. Job 37, and of τὰ ἐπουράνια in Test. 
Job 36, 38 (= Eph 1 etc.), Test. Job 27 (Satan says, ἐγὼ δὲ εἰμὶ πνεῦμα) -Ξ 
Eph 6:3, Test. Job 48 (καὶ ἀνέλαβεν ἄλλην καρδίαν, μηκέτι τὰ τῆς γῆς φρονεῖν) = 
Col 33, Test. Job 37 (where Job confesses his hope is not in riches but 
ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ζῶντι) Ξε τ Ti 67; the analogy between the synoptic temptation- 
narratives (and the visit of the magi) and the older midrash is naturally close 
at several points, and there are occasional verbal identities which are more 
than fortuitous (¢.g. Jn 3!2=Test. Job 38, Jn 1377=Test. Job 7, ὃ ποιεῖς 
ποίησον, cp. context). (#) The post-exilic book from which the quotation in 
Lk 115! (καὶ ἡ Σοφία rod θεοῦ εἶπεν κτλ.) is taken (cp. 7°, Sap 7” etc.) 
has not survived. That the words are originally a citation, and not meant 
(so recently Grill, Untersuchungen tiber d. Entstehung d. vierten Evangeliums, 
179 f.) to represent Jesus speaking of himself as the Wisdom of God, is fairly 
plain from v.°!” where val, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐκζητηθήσεται xrd. take up the foregoing 
ἐκζητηθῇ. Luke, in putting the words into the mouth of Jesus, has altered the 
original σοφοὺς καὶ γραμματεῖς (Mt 2333) into ἀποστόλους, but the background 
of a Wisdom-cycle (Bacon, DCG. ii. 827 f.) is still visible, and the quotation 
probably came from some Jewish writing of the Wisdom-group which is no 
longer extant (so, ¢.2. Ewald, Bleek, Paulus, Weizsicker, Pfleiderer, Scholten, 
J. Weiss). (2) The γραφή quoted in Jn 7(6 πιστεύων els ἐμέ, καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ 
γραφή, ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος) cannot be explained 
satisfactorily from any of the OT parallels or rabbinic traditions, and probably 
was derived from an apocryphal source no longer extant (so, ¢.g., Whiston, 
Semler, Weizsicker, Ewald). A. J. Edmunds (Buddhist Texts quoted as 
Scripture by the Gospel of John, 1906, pp. 9 f.) finds the original in the 
Buddhist Patisambhida, i. 53 (‘‘ What is the Tathagato’s knowledge of the 
twin miracle? In this case, the Tathagato works a twin miracle unrivalled 
by disciples ; from his upper body proceeds a flame of fire, and from his 
lower body proceeds a torrent of water”), but the citation is drawn in all 
likelihood from the same Wisdom-literature as that employed in Lk 114F 
(cp. Bacon, DCG. ii. 829). (0) The origin of the allusion in Mt 233 (ὅπως 
πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται) has not yet 
been identified in any pre-Christian writing, canonical or uncanonical 
(Resch). The use of the plural (προφητῶν) might suggest * a loose summary 
of OT prophecies (so, recently, Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklirung 
des NT, 238-239), though the use of ὅτι in 2655 is hardly a parallel. In this 


* So Jerome (ostendit se non uerba de scripturis sumpsisse sed sensum) as 
at 26%, 


3 


34 PROLEGOMENA 


case Ναζωραῖος is substituted for Ναζαρηνός by a kind of pious paranomasia 
in order to suggest the messianic term (7y3, ‘s}) of Is 11’, and the parano- 
masia was probably mediated by the Aramaic equivalent (8733) for ‘‘ branch” 
or ‘shoot ” (cp. Box, DCG. ii. 235-236, and Jeremias, Babylonischesim NT, 
1905, pp. 46-47). The alternative is to refer the citation to the prophecy of 
Samson’s birth in Jg 13° (Naglp [ἡγιάσμενον Nagipatov, A] θεοῦ ἔσται τὸ 
παιδάριον κτὰ., cp. Mt 17). (2) Halévy, arguing (in RS., 1902, pp. 13-60) 
that the correct place of the Temptation is after Mk 8% (= Mt 16%), finds that 
many of the traits in the synoptic narrative are modelled upon the midrash of 
the Martyrdom of Isaiah ; but the proofs are not convincing. Even though 
Tyre and Sidon in that midrash are the refuge of prophets (pp. 44 f.), this would 
not prove that Mk 7% was filiated to it. (9) The Ahikar-cycle of stories and 
traditions,* however, has left traces in the NT,t+ e.g. in the parable of the 
fruitless fig-tree (Lk 1.358), which contains echoes of the passage in Ahikar: 
‘* My son, said Ahikar, be not like the tree which grew near the water and bore 
no fruits, and when its owner would have cut it down, said, Plant me in another 
spot, and then, if I bearno fruit, cut medown. But the owner said, Thou art 
close to the water and yet bearest no fruit ; how then wilt thou bear if thou 
art set elsewhere?” Similarly the parable of the wicked servant (Mt 2455 5) 
is modelled in part on the legend of the wicked Nadan, who, after gathering 
his disreputable associates, begins to eat and drink with them, and to maltreat 
the men and maidservants, till suddenly his uncle Ahikar reappears—where- 
upon Nadan, detected and rebuked, ‘‘ swelled up immediately and became 
like a blown-out bladder. And his limbs swelled, and his legs and his feet 
and his side, and he was torn, and his belly burst asunder, and his entrails 
were scattered, and he perished and died. And his latter end was destruction, 
and he went to hell.” + The very punishment of flogging (Lk 1257) is the 
same, for Nadan is bound and then given a thousand lashes on the shoulder 
and a thousand more on the loins ; but the parable (like some later versions of 
the tradition) modifies the legend by substituting διχοτομεῖν for the con- 
ventional, ghastly ending. ‘‘As the story was clearly popular, and is also 
pre-Christian, it would be no very strange thing if the Parable had borrowed a 
trait or two from it” (M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii., 1897, p. 158; 
J. Rendel Harris in 7he Story of Akikar, pp. xf.). Such data tend to show 
that some of the sayings and stories in the evangelic tradition were not 
simply zetiological in origin or based on OT prophecy, but derived part of 
their matter as well as of their form occasionally from earlier folk-lore no 
less than from midrashic models, outside the letter of the OT. Behind the 


* On their early origin, prior to Tobit, cp. R. Smend’s Alter τε. Herkunft 
des Achikar- Romans (in Bethefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die alt. Wiss. xiii. 1908). 

+ Cp. Halévy in 2S. (1900) pp. 61f., (1901) pp. 255f. His arguments in 
favour of parallel reasoning in the case of Jesus and his adversaries and 
Ahikar and his enemies are not cogent, but the Ahikar-tale may certainly be 
allowed to form ‘‘one of those interesting Jewish products of the Greek 
period which facilitated the transformation of the Hebrew Haggada in both 
of its main growths, rabbinic and Christian.” 

¢ Or, as To 14'° (B) has it, ‘‘went down to darkness” (cp. Mt 
22) 25). 


LITERARY SOURCES 35 


early Christian accounts of the death of Judas,* who was, like Nadan, char- 
acterised by black ingratitude and treachery (cp. Jn 1318), the Ahikar-tradition 
may be also conjectured to stand, especially when the manner of Nadan’s 
death (see p. 34) is compared with Ac 1'® and with the tale of Papias 
about Judas’s body swelling up. ‘‘ We need not be surprised if Ahikar should 
furnish the key to the genesis of the Judas legends” (Harris, of. cz¢. p. Ixv),t 
particularly if, as in the Armenian, πρησθείς be substituted for the awkward 
πρηνὴς γενόμενος in Ac 18, Folk-lore of this kind, however, is not the only 
clue to the Judas stories. Thus, after describing a scoffer at the Hebrew 
scriptures, Philo adds that he presently committed suicide (de mut. nomin. 8, 
ἐπ᾽ ἀγχόνην ἧξεν, iv’ ὁ μιαρὸς καὶ δυσκάθαρτος μηδὲ καθαρῷ θανάτῳ τελευτήσῃ) 
by hanging, a death appropriate to a polluted person. (7) One or two minor 
and casual citations from ancient literature may be noted in conclusion.t 
The λόγος quoted in Jn 457 (ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ σπείρων καὶ ἄλλος ὁ θερίζων) is a 
loose citation of the common proverb, which occurs also in Pseudo-Diogenes, 
11. 62 (cp. Wendland in Neue Jahrb. f. a. klass. Alt., 1902, p. 6n.). The 
παροιμία cited in 2 P 2” is either fiom the Ahikar-cycle (cp. Halévy in RS., 
1900, p. 66) or from Herakleitus (cp. Wendland, SBBA., 1898, 788-796) ; 
the sow-proverb is quoted also by Clem. Alex. Protrept. x. 92. 4, etc., who is 
closer to the original form (Ves ἥδονται βορβόρῳ μᾶλλον ἢ καθαρῷ ὕδατι). The 
sarcastic description of the Cretans in Tit 112 (Κρῆτες det ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, 
γαστέρες dpyal) isa hexameter apparently drawn from the περὶ χρησμῶν of the 
local philosopher, Epimenides (cp. Diels in SBBA., 1891, 387-403, and J. R. 
Harris in xf." ii. 305-317), who attacked the Cretan claim that Zeus lay buried 
in Crete. Callimachus quotes the first three words. The famous apologue of 
Men. Agrippa was probably in Paul’s mind when he wrote 1 Co 1257, and 
the iambic trimeter in 1 Co 15 φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρήσθ᾽ ὁμιλίαι κακαί) originally 
lay either in Euripides or Menander ; but the hexameter in Ja 1" (πᾶσα δόσις 
ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον), where ἀγαθή and τέλειον are unconvincingly 
taken by Fischer (PAz/ologus, 1891, 377-379) as predicates (sc. ἐστίν), is of 
unknown origin. On the other hand, the line of poetry put into Paul’s 
mouth at Athens, in Ac 17% (ὡς καὶ τινες τῶν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν εἰρήκασιν" 
τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν), is probably from his fellow-countryman Aratus 
(cp. Hoole, Zhe Classical Element in the NT, pp. 82-84, and Blass’ note), 
if not from the hymn of Cleanthes. 


* The connection of the Judas stories with the-Ahikar tradition is decidedly 
closer than the filiation which Halévy prefers (AS., 1902, 46f.) to find 
between them and the machinations of Bechira, the Samaritan accuser of 
Isaiah in the midrash. His explanation of ᾿Ισκαριώτης as a corruption of 
Σιχαριώτης (a native of the Samaritan Sichor) is highly precarious. 

+ Cp., further, 477., 1900, 490-513, for proof that Mt 27%" and Ac 161: 
rest on the Ahikar-legend (£8z. 2627). The historicity of both stories is 
upheld by Schlatter in his Zur Topographie und Geschichte Paldstinas (1893), 
217 f. 

} Further materials for the influence of Jewish apocalypses on the NT and 
on early Christian literature in general are collected by Prof. R. H. Charles 
in his editions of Zhe Apocalypse of Baruch (1896), The Assumption of Moses 
(1897), Zhe Ascension of Isaian (1900), The Book of Jubilees (1902), and the 


36 PROLEGOMENA 


IV. 


STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF N17, 


“Time’s glory,” according to the Shakespearean line, “‘is to 
blot old books and alter their contents.” This is not a glory 
in which the literary critic can be expected to rejoice. It has 
imposed on him the task of reconstructing the original form of 
several ancient documents, and of allowing for processes of 
interpolation, displacement, and compilation.* 

(i.) Interpolation} means the addition of passages to an 
original composition, or the incorporation of later verses, 
sections, and even words, in a writing which has come down 
from some earlier period, either (a) at the hands of the author 
himself, or (4) by subsequent editors of the volume, after the 
writer’s death, or (c) by scribes (or editors) of the text. Like 
other fragments of ancient literature,{ the early Christian records 
were liable to such handling, though the dimensions of this form 
of textual corruption were restricted by the ecclesiastical scrutiny 
which before long came to be exercised over documents of 
the apostolic faith within the archives of the church. 


(a) Instances of editorial addition, by the author himself, are to be found, 
é.g., if tradition be reliable, in the Perse of AXschylus, in Herodotus, and in 
the Georgics—Vergil having cut out the original ending of the fourth Georgic 
and inserted another, after the death of Gallus. Juvenal revised and rewrote 
some of his Satires, while Martial appears to have reissued the tenth book 
of his epigrams, altered and adopted to the requirements of the reign of 


Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908); on the NT quotations from the 
last-named book, see his articles in H/., 1905, 558-573, and Lx.’ vii. 111f. 

* Cf. HNT. 608 f., for a fuller discussion of these points. The following 
paragraphs are simply meant to pave the way for later references under the 
successive NT books. 

{ Hermann, the famous Homeric critic, used the term to denote not 
only the insertion of verses, but, in accordance with strict etymology, the 
refurbishing of an older writing (cp. the pref. to his edition of the Homeric 
hymns, p. viii). 

¢ In his chapter on ‘Interpolation in Thucydides” (Zhe Fourth Book 
of Thucydides, 1889, pp. xxxi f.), Dr. W. G. Rutherford, after discussing 
the question of these glosses and scholia, or interpolated adscripts, decisares 
that ‘‘nothing could have prevented the importation into the text of any 
author of a great deal of what was properly comment.” The general theory 
and practice is well put by A. Gercke in Neue Jahrb. fiir das klass. Altertum 
(1901), pp. 3 f 


INTERPOLATION 37 


Trajan. Several passages in the De Rerum Natura (e.g. ii. 165-183) are 
also to be explained most naturally as additions made by Lucretius himself 
to the original draft, and in the case of the Third gospel or its sequel it 
is not unlikely that Luke may have re-edited (ἀνασκευασθέν, διασκευασθέν) his 
work. (4) Editorial additions are much more numerous, as, ¢.g., in the well- 
known instances of Jer 171%?" (a later insertion), 315° 33!7-°6 (om. LXX), 
Is 667!-*4 etc., and in the Catalogue of the ships (Hom. //zad, 2*4-®7), The 
last-named fragment must be pronounced not simply an originally inde- 
pendent document from the Hesiodic school in Boeotia, but itself interpolated. 
The Homeric διασκευασταί are supposed to have worked thus on the //iad 
and Odyssey with the view of smoothing out and harmonising it (cp. the 
list of passages in Jebb’s Homer, Ὁ. 163) ; the famous passage in the Antigone 
(904-920) is almost certainly to be regarded as an interpolation, perhaps by 
the son of Sophocles, in the original ; and stage interpolations, as might be 
expected, were especially frequent in the text of the Athenian dramatists. 
Later works even in literature and philosophy were not exempt from the 
intrusion of such alien matter, which, it is hard, in some cases (¢.g. in 
Lucretius, iii. 806-818 and i. 44-49), to attribute certainly to (4) or (c), 
though internal evidence suggests that passages like ///ad 2180-188, 9075-358 
and Herod. 612!-!*4 were added bya later hand. The corresponding source 
of interpolation in early Christian literature was the liturgical use of the 
documents in the worship of the churches (cp. Apocalypse); the Fourth 
gospel, among the NT writings, offers the clearest case of a document 
which has been edited by some later reviser, but Romans and 2 Corinthians 
present substantially the same phenomenon, though their canonical form was 
due in all probability to the interests of the Pauline Canon itself. Mark’s 
gospel is supposed by some critics to have been written before A.D. 70, but to 
have received (from the author ἢ) one or two touches after that date. A modern 
instance of this procedure is furnished by Morthanger Abbey, which was first 
composed by Jane Austen in 1798. In the fifth chapter, however, we have 
an illusion to Miss Edgeworth’s Be/7da—a novel which did not appear until 
1801. This proves that Miss Austen’s work lies before us in a revised form ; 
the first draft was gone over by the authoress before its final publication some 
years later. The third class of interpolations (¢) cannot be strictly differentiated 
from (4), but it also is amply verified in ancient literature by the evident freedom 
exercised by copyists and editors of a text.* Glosses, such as Herod. 133 
2117. 145 482 would creep in from the margin, or be incorporated (e.g. Jer 
2530. 260 Ts 50!°-11) in order to straighten out a passage or bring it up to 
date. The possibility of such treatment is familiar to all students of the 
ancient texts; and such phenomena as the LXX rearrangement of Proverbs, 
or the Noachian interpolations in the Book of Enoch, indicate the frequency 
of the practice in the circles among which primitive Christianity arose. 
The evidence for (a) and (0) is either drawn from tradition or from internal 
evidence, but (¢) offers a class of instances which naturally are more obvious, 
where the discrepancies of MSS at once reveal sutures of the text. Even 


“Cp. 5. Reinach’s Manuel de Philologie Classique? (1904), i. pp. 43, 
κοί, The extant letters of Epicurus have been swollen by the intrusion of 
marginal glosses, which are part of the text as given by Diogenes Laertius, 


38 PROLEGOMENA 


where the extant text does not sugzest any break, the possibility of inter- 
polations cannot be denied outright ; the distance between the oldest MSS, 
or even the oldest versions, and the date of composition, leaves ample room 
for changes to have taken place in the interval between the autograph and 
the earliest known text.* Thus sheer internal evidence comes into play as a 
valid factor in the critical analysis. 

The extent of interpolations varied from a word or two to a paragraph, 
and the motives for it varied equally from sinister to naive. During the second 
century the less reputable reasons for interpolation sprang from the growing 
prestige of the Christian scriptures, which were being appealed to in con- 
troversies. Heretical remodelling was rife, and the practice of alteration 
and omission was not entirely confined to one side. Origen charged the 
Valentinians with it; Eusebius blamed Tatian; Celsus retorted upon the 
Christians the charge of having interpolated in their own interests the 
Sibylline oracles ; while Dionysius of Corinth, ¢. 170 A.D., was disgusted to 
find that his own epistles were being tampered with. The early Christians 
themselves seem to have had no hesitation in treating the LXX text witha 
certain freedom, inserting here and there phrases to fill out the messianic 
predictions of Jesus. 

So far as the gospels were concerned, the most natural motives for 
interpolation were the harmonising bias ¢ and the disinclination of copyists— 
whose powers, it must be remembered, amounted occasionally to almost 
editorial functions—to allow useful material, floated within reach by the oral 
tradition, to pass away. Expansion was more natural than abbreviation, 
though omissions were not uncommon, in cases where utterances seemed 
either contradictory or unedifying in some special degree. The liberties 
occasionally taken with the text of the gospels are shown, ¢.g., by the 
revision of Luke contained in Codex Beze, the work of Marcion, the use 
made of Mk by Mt and Lk, and numerous scribal or editorial touches in the 
MSS (contrast D and the other uncials) and versions. ‘‘ There are 
abundant traces in the MSS and other authorities for the text of the gospels, 
that they were copied at first with great freedom. Possessors of copies did 
not hesitate to add little items of tradition, often oral, in some cases perhaps 
written, which reached them. . . . Much of this may be due to the fact that 
these early copies were probably to a large extent the works, not of pro- 
fessional copyists but of private individuals, whose interest was strong in the 
subject-matter of what they wrote, and who were glad to record any stray 
sayings or act of Christ which came in their way, even though it was not 
found in the copy before them” (Sanday, /nspzration?, 1894, 294, 297). 


* The pseudo-Adamantian Dialogue was interpolated within twenty or 
thirty years after it was composed. For Galen, see Rutherford’s A Chapter 
tn the History of Annotation (1905), p. 57. ; 

+ This was not confined to the gospels. One of the classical instances is 
the conformation of Verg. 2 εἰ. 5°7 in the majority of MSS to Georg. 114, 

te.g. the omission of 2 K 1816 (Hezekiah’s submission) in Is 36-39, the 
omission by the LXX of the headings prefixed to various collections in 
Proverbs in order to bring the whole under the zgis of Solomon, and the 
Ulomeric omissions of Aristarchus (Athen. v, 180-18] D), 


DISPLACEMENT 39 


(ii.) It is also a fair question whether a document may not 
contain genuine but misplaced passages. Any application of 
the hypothesis of a displacement in the text requires to be 
checked by a hesitation about attributing too exact and 
systematic a character to a volume, especially when no MS 
evidence is available. But in itself the hypothesis is legitimate. 
Whether due to carelessness in copying, or to the misplacement 
of leaves of papyri (cp. Blau’s Studien zur alt-Hebratschen 
Buchwesen, 1902, pp. 23f.), or to some material mishandling 
of a codex,* inverted order is by no means an uncommon 
feature of ancient documents. One classical instance is furnished 
by the canonical order of the Nikomachean Ethics; Aristotle’s 
original order was undoubtedly bks. i.-iii., vil.—viil., vii-v. In 
the OT Jer 3618 9226 and τοῦ 6 are, even if genuine, mis- 
placed; Zec 45!© comes too late; Isa 41®? is conjectured, 
by an attractive argument of Marti, to have lain originally 
between 4019 and 407°, and Hab 1°! may be supposed to have 
followed 25 in the autograph. Similarly, in the pseudo-Philonic 
treatise de incorruptibilitate mundi, according to Bernays, the 
present confusion of the traditional text is best accounted for by 
the conjecture that some leaves have been misplaced. 


Carelessness on the part of copyists (cp Gercke, pp. 81 f.) was a common 
source of disorder, δ... Hor. 12. i. 15°" (cp. H. A. J. Munro’s Lucretius, 
i. 28f.). Verses were often misplaced, or even whole paragraphs. In 
several of the biblical instances (James, Fourth Gospel, Acts, Apocalypse, 
etc.), such displacements are due to the common practice of scribes or 
copyists who wrote in ‘‘ narrow columns, after the fashion of what was on the 
papyrus strips ; two, three, or even four columns being on each page. Ifa 
scribe, through inadvertence or interruption, happened to omit a phrase, he 
would write it either on the margin or in the space between two of the 
columns, with a suitable mark in the text to indicate where it ought to be” 
(A. S. Lewis, #7. xii. 519). The next copyist, who incorporated his pre- 
decessor’s marginal note in the text, might easily misunderstand the reference 
marks, and thus insert the passage in the wrong column. 


* Asin the case of Aristotle ; cp. Tredelenbuig, Hést. Bettrage zur Philos. 
iii. 413f.; Ueberweg, Ast. Phil. i. 147. Fou other dislocations, see 
the Politics, i. ΤΊ. 7, iii. 4. 11f.; Dr. H. fackson’s edition of the 
Nikomachean Ethics, bk. v., where (pp. xiv {.) the dislocated canonical 
text is rearranged, and Susemihl and Ilicks’ ed. of the Polztics (1894, pp. 
78 f.), where the possibility is admitted that the ‘textual phenomena may be 
due to two parallel versions. The minor phenomenon of words displaced by 
a copyist (cp. W. Headlam, Class. Rev. 1902, 243-256) falls under textual 
criticism, 


40 PROLEGOMENA 


(iii.) Compilation, or the incorporation of earlier sources without acknow- 
ledgment, is too obvious, especially in the historical literature, to require any 
detailed notice (cp. HVZ7. 615-619). The literary historian usually worked 
over his sources. Hebrew chronographers were often content to transcribe, 
leaving the strata of their sources fairly obvious. Greek or Roman authors, 
however, felt too strongly the claims of form and literary finish to allow any 
mere transliteration of some earlier document to stand.* So far from being 
inconsistent with historical accuracy, this practice obtained among the most 
scrupulous writers. It was a canon and convention of the time, and the 
credit of Tacitus has not been impaired even for moderns by the discovery 
that the original speech of Claudius, de ture honorum Gaillis dando, differs 
materially from the words put by the historian into the emperor’s lips. 
Thucydides, so far as we can check his methods, rewrote his sources in his 
own style. His authorities were moulded by his own diction and conceptions, 
and writers of his school and spirit would have curtly dismissed as mere 
ὑπομνήματα any collection of earlier sources or work in which previous 
materials had not been artistically recast.t The apocalypse of John, like 
most other apocalypses, is also an example of how older fragments were 
brought up to date and reset by a later writer; the small apocalypse of the 
synoptic gospels is one of such fragments. 


(iv.) It is in the criticism of apocalyptic literature that the 
question of pseudonymity is also started (cp. MNT. 619f.; 
G. H. Putnam, Authors and their Public in Ancient Times?, 
1894, pp. 67f., 202f.). The apocalypses of the later Judaism 
were pseudepigrapha almost invariably. Such writings, by a 
recognised literary custom, were issued under the name of some 
older prophet or hero, whose name lent sanction and authority 
to the contents of the prophecy. 


Throughout the Judaism of Alexandria,t subsequent to the Ptolemies, the 
practice developed in several directions. The older Jewish literature reveals 
the tendency to group literature round great names of the past, from Moses 
to David and Solomon; and, long before Daniel had started the line of 
pseudonymous apocalypses, the book of Deuteronomy showed that this literary 
device was quite compatible with religious and moral motives of the highest 
order. One development of the practice in Alexandrian Judaism, that of 
circulating works under the gis of some pagan authority, historical or 
mythological, was naturally foreign to the early Christian literature. The 
Sibyl, Hekataeus, and Aristeas play a réle in pre-Christian Judaism to which 
there is nothing exactly corresponding in the primitive church. But when 


* Cp. Nipperdey’s Opuscula (1877), pp. 418 f. 

+ Cp. Lucian, de hist. conscrib, 16; Cic. ad Alt. ii. 1. 1f. ; Dio Cassius 
spent twelve years in rewriting materials which it had taken him ten years 
to collect. 

tSusemihl, Geschichte d. Griech. Literatur in ad. Alexandrinerzeit, ii. 
597 (., 601 f. 


PSEUDONYMITY 41 


pseudonymity expanded to include epistles, as it did in Greek literature long 
before it did in Judaism, the way was prepared along which some early 
Christians * essayed to serve their age (Susemihl, ii. pp. 589f.). Like 
boulders on a mountain-slope, most of the great personalities came to be 
covered with the moss of a more or less extensive correspondence, and the 
rise of a literature which included the Solomonic correspondence, written by 
Eupolemus, or the so-called ‘‘ epistle of Jeremiah” (preserved at the close 
of the book of Baruch), indicates how congenial and innocent the practice 
was in pre-Christian Judaism. 

(az) The range of pseudonymous literature was wider, however, in Greece 
and Rome, and although ‘‘ the entire classical period of Greek literature 
furnishes us with no authentic instance of a literary fraud,” + the centuries 
preceding and following the rise of Christianity were marked by a fairly 
extensive use of the pseudepigraphic method in philosophy, religion, and 
literature. The inducements to employ the names and characters of 
illustrious men varied in quality. One was the desire for pecuniary 
gain, which undoubtedly operated during the period in which Ptolemy 
Philadelphus was forming his library (cf. Bentley’s Dzssert. on Phalaris, pp. 
So0f.); this cannot be traced within the early Christian literature. The 
higher motives for such compositions sprang from the innocent admiration 
and naive sympathy which prompted a disciple to reproduce in his own 
language the ideas, or what he conceived to be the ideas, of his master, and 
yet forbade him, out of modesty, to present these under his own name. 
Conscious of the master’s influence, disciples viewed their own writings as an 
extension of his spirit. In them, through their pages, he spoke, not they. 
Αὐτὸς ἔφα. What they wrote was not so much a private venture or in- 
dependent outburst of their own, as the propagation of his mind and spirit. 
Hence it became a point of unselfish piety to give up all claims to personal 
glory, and attribute their writings to the master himself. Such was the 
practice of the later Pythagoreans (Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, i. pp. 
311f.). This throws light upon the ethos of NT writings like Ephesians and 
the Pastorals. While 2 Peter represents in the NT Canon a pseudonymous 
epistle, pure and simple, the pastoral epistles, on the other hand, were 
>omposed by a Paulinist who must have had access to certain notes or papers 
of the great apostle, which he incorporated in his own writings. A similar 
instance, in Greek literature, is furnished by the Fourth Philippic and the 
speech περὶ συντάξεως, which, though appearing under the name of 
Demosthenes, were in all likelihood composed, not long after the orator’s 
death, by a writer who possessed some genuine notss of his predecessor 


“Cp. K. R. Kéostlin (Zheol. Jahrb. 1851, 149-221, ‘‘der pseud. 
Literatur der dltesten Kirche, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Bildung des 
Kanons ”). 

+ Gudemann, in Classical Studies in honour of H. Drisler (New York, 
1894), pp. 52-74. One rare instance of a malicious motive is pointed out in 
the case of Anaximenes of Lampsacus (Paus. vi. 18. 2f.), who imitated the 
style of Theopompus to the latter’s discredit. For the later Augustan 
epistolography, see Peter, op. czt. (below), pp. 171 f. Epicurus also suffered, 
according to Diog. Laertius (x. 3), from pseudonymous epistles. 


42 PROLEGOMENA 


and used these as the basis or nucleus of these orations (cp. Blass, dz 
Attische Beredsamkett, iii.’ pp. 382 f.). 

(4) Another tendency which fostered pseudonymous epistles was the 
recognised device, employed by ancient historians, of composing epistles in 
order to lend vividness and point to their narratives. ‘Though some of these 
epistles may be genuine,* as in the case of one or two of Sallust’s in the 
Catiline, the large majority, however true to the general spirit of the 
situation and the supposed writer, were undoubtedly due to the creative 
imagination of the author himself (cp. Westermann, de Zpzstol. Script. Graecis, 
i. pp. 4f.). Of the two examples in LLuke’s second volume (Ac 157% 2376-39), 
the former suggests some historical nucleus, the latter is more independent. 
To this feature may be added that of composing the dedication or preface in 
the form of an epistle, as is often the case in modern books, although the 
extension of the practice to historical works is confined to writers like Aulus 
Hirtius and Velleius for the most part, among Roman authors of the classical 
period, and to Josephus among Jewish. 

(c) It is further obvious that from the historian composing not only a 
letter but a speech in the name of some historical figure, it was only a short 
step to the composition of a pseudonymous epistle, in all good faith, which 
was designed to edify and instruct. The practice of composing speeches, 
which was perfectly consonant with the ancient historian’s canons of veracity, 
varied from a free invention of such addresses to the conservation of salient 
poinés in an oral or written piece of tradition. The latter is not infrequent 
in Tacitus; he feels at perfect liberty to construct speeches like that of ᾿ 
Germanicus on his death-bed, but he appears to exercise less freedom in his 
condensation, rearrangement, and rewriting of the emperor’s addresses and 
letters to the senate (cp. Furneaux’s Annals of Tacttus, i. pp. 23f.). Con- 
sequently, the fact that ancient historians assumed and were allowed this 
licence does not zZso facto bar out the hypothesis that in certain cases the 
writer may have wrought upon the outline or substance of an authentic 
speech transmitted by tradition. This would be more credible when speeches 
were composed in oratio obliqua, as is generally the case with Caesar, whose 
historical credibility in this matter is to be ranked high, in spite of obvious 
temptations to literary effect and political tendency. f 

The rhetorical element in ancient historiography naturally adopted the 
method of (ἠθογραφῆσαι) bringing out the character of a person or the salient 
features of a situation by means of speeches. The author composed such a 
speech as appeared to him suitable for the occasion, drawing perhaps upon 
any materials of oral or written tradition that lay to his hand, but casting 
the speech into such forms as were apt to the setting chosen. The rival 
methods of indirect speech or of psychological analysis were open, but they 
were at once less dramatic and less easy. Tacitus commonly preferred the 


* Or elaboration of a genuine nucleus (cp. W. Vischer’s K/eine Schriften, 
i. pp. 429f.). See further on this point, Hermann Peter’s aie Scriptores 
Historie Augusta (sechs litteratur-geschichtliche Untersuchungen, 1892), 
ΡΡ. 153 f. 

+ Cp. Fabia’s essay, de orationibus gua sunt in Comm. Cas. de Bells 
Gallico (1889), pp. 91 f. 


NT SPEECHES 43 


latter process, and there are cases of conscientious preference for the former ; 
but the public life of the ancients, where so much of importance was 
transacted in and by speeches, led the majority of historians to adopt the 
method of composing speeches for their dvamatzs persone as the most in- 
telligible and popular method of giving plastic expression to historical truth.* 
The speech served as an analysis of character. It revealed the speaker, and 
rayed light on the situation more effectively than paragraphs of comment 
or analysis. Thucydides is the master of this school of historians ;} 
Theopompus and Sallust are his leading successors. The speeches in the 
NT literature consist of (2) compositions made up from previous materials, 
usually genuine in the main ; and (4) more or less free compositions, which, 
without being purely rhetorical exercises, represent what the writer’s histori- 
cal sense judged appropriate to the situation. This judgment may have been 
guided by tradition in some cases. But the general type of the second class 
of speeches, which includes the majority of those in Acts,§ corresponds to 
the speeches of Thucydides or Cesar, Polybius or Josephus. Occasionally, 
as, ¢.g., in Livy, vii. 30, x. 6f., and xxxiv. 54, or in Aulus Gellius even, a 
speech may possess historic value as the reflection or reproduction of some 
older source,|| instead of being, like the work of Dionysius Halicarnassus in 
this department, purely imaginative. Historians of the Gracchi period, like 
Fannius, proved invaluable to subsequent writers in this respect. Their 
annals incorporated genuine speeches of contemporary statesmen, now and 
then almost verbally, upon which both Cicero and Plutarch drew. Con- 
sequently later speeches which rest on such authentic fragments acquire 
a historical weight out of all proportion to their extant shape and setting. 
The longer speeches in the gospels are partly based upon such earlier 
sources (¢.g. Matthew), but they are partly (as in the Fourth gospel) due to 
prophetic and homiletical expansions of authentic logia. The inspired 
prophet, speaking in the Lord’s name, is not far from the preacher who 
develops a homily (e.g. Mt 25%!) ; preaching, in its higher phases, is almost 
lyric, and this creative process, in which a mind brooding on some gospel 


*See C. Nipperdey’s Opuscula (1877), pp. 415 f. 

+ ‘I have put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to 
the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, 
while at the same time I endeavoured, as nearly as I could, to give the 
general purport of what was actually said” (i. 22, tr. Jowett). Cp. Ivo Bruns, 
das lit. Tdealportrat (1896), pp. 24 f. 

t+ Or compositions written with a deliberate purpose, like most if not all 
of the speeches in Cesar, which, while apposite and vivid, are intended to 
colour the whole situation. 

8 E. Curtius (cp. 22.7 iv. 436-455) puts in a vigorous plea for the 
speech at Athens. ‘* Whoever disputes the historical value of the account of 
St. Paul in Athens, tears one of the most important pages from the history of 
the human race.” 

| Cp. Soltau, xeue Jahrbicher f. d. klass. Alterthum (1902,) pp. 23f. 

Ἵ 2.2. if the source be trustworthy. But when Appian (v. 39-45) draws 
on the commentaries of Augustus, the unreliable nature of the latter deprives 
the later historian of any right to credibility on this score. 


44 PROLEGOMENA 


word britigs out an edifying monologue or dialogue, accounts for some 
passages in the synoptists as well as in the Fourth gospel more naturally than 
the hypothesis of deliberate literary inventiveness. 


(v.) The question of translation (V7. 605 f.), with regard 
to any early Christian writing, covers a wider tract of interest 
than the problem of its date. Undoubtedly, translation implies, 
as in the case of Ecclesiasticus, a gap of years between the 
composition of the original and the issue of the version; but it 
also implies problems relating to the authorship and contents. 
Thus, in the case of the Matthzean logia, it is too common to 
assume that the various Greek translations were practically 
verbatim. They partook of the nature of recensions. The 
particular recension which was fused with Mk in order to form 
the canonical Matthew may have been almost as far as the 
Greek recension of Josephus’ Wars from the Aramaic original. 
“For Greek and Roman readers it would need to be materially 
recast. . . . Very probably the réswmé of Jewish history from 
the time of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Herod (bk. 1.) 
was first prefixed in the Greek; the greater part of the seventh 
book was doubtless added at the same time” (G. F. Moore, 
ἘΔ. 2091). Matthew is not a translation, but it is a fair 
conjecture—so far as literary canons go—that in Mt 1-2 glosses 
might have been added by an editor,* whether from a special 
source or sources or from personal access to Palestinian 
traditions, when the Aramaic draft (beginning with 3!?) was 
translated. 


Vv. 


SOME LITERARY FORMS IN NT. 


The gospel was the newt form of literature developed by 
Christianity. The embryonic stages of this literary product 
were not wholly novel, however; the λόγια, or collections of 
sayings of the Master, resembled the collections of apophthegms 
current among the disciples of philosophic teachers; and 
even among the Christians themselves ἀπομνημονεύματα, not 
εὐαγγέλια, was a primitive term in use for their gospels. 


* Jacoby (WT Ethzk, 1899, pp. 410 f.) puts down 5.819. 238 and 24” to 
this exposition which blended with the text. 

+ The ancient conception of depicting a character, subjective and objective, 
as illustrated by Pols bius, Livy, and Tacitus, are discussed by Ivo Bruns in 
die Persinlichkeit in der Geschichtschreiobung der Alten (18098). 

t The ἀπομνημονεύματα of Moitagenes, which were subsequently combined 
with the ὑπομνήματα of Damis (1,4. extracts from diaries) to form the bio- 


THE DIALOGUE 45 


Aristotle draws a distinction between his ἐξωτερικοὶ or 
ἐκδεδομένοι λόγοι (published works) and his ἀκρόασεις. The 
latter were private summaries or abstracts, resembling a précis 
for his audience of students. We thus get a distinction between 
τὰ ἀνεγνωσμένα and τὰ ἀνέκδοτα which throws light on writings 
like the Ur-Marcus * and Q, both of which would resemble the 
former. But even in these, and still more clearly in the 
canonical gospels, the material assumes forms which have 
partial analogies in ancient literature. 

(a) The chief of these is the dialogue. At first sight the 
philosophical development of literature among the disciples of 
Socrates is unlike the primitive Christian literature in one im- 
portant respect: the faith and reverence of the disciples of Jesus 
prevented them from composing literary dialogues in which their 
Master was made to answer problems of thought and conduct. 
But it is not accurate to suggest (so R. Hirzel, Der Dialog, 
ein literar-historischer Versuch, Leipzig, 1895, 11. 367) that the 
first efforts in this line made by the early Christians are to be 
found in writings like the Pistis Sophia and the fabricated 
correspondence of Jesus. Examples of the dialogue-method lie 
earlier in the literature of the church. For one thing, the com- 
position of several sections in the synoptic gospels was prompted 
by the rise of questions about conduct. How were Chris- 
tians to bear themselves in preaching the gospel? or when 
attacked ? or towards the Jewish authorities? How did Jesus 
behave towards the priests? What was his attitude to the law? 
These and similar questions were the nuclei round which several 
reminiscences of the evangelic tradition gathered. The out- 
come, as it lies in the gospels, was in many cases made up of 
genuine recollections and authentic logia; but there was also an 
element of composition. Even oral tradition could not hand 
down logia invariably as they were spoken. A plus of preaching 
inevitably attached to them. Furthermore, the setting was 
ultimately the work of an author, who, as is plain, e.g., from 
Matthew’s gospel, worked often on principles of schematism 


graphy of Apollonius of Tyana, resembled πράξεις. Reitzenstein (He//en- 
tstische Wundererzahlungen, 1906, 40f.) thinks the former must have been 
a sort of prototype of the gospels (especially the Fourth), the latter a parallel 
to the we-sections in Acts. 

* Abbott (Dzat. 996) speaks of Mk’s ‘‘note-book gospel.” The phrase 
suits the Ur-Marcus even better than the canonical Mark, 


46 PROLEGOMENA 


and with certain ideas and tendencies in his mind which were 
not without influence upon his materials. Each evangelist had 
his conception of Jesus; he had also his own idiosyncrasies, and 
he was face to face with the special needs of his audience or 
age. The conjoint influence of these led to such literary dia- 
logues as the synoptic tradition includes in its narrative of Jesus. 
But the earliest and closest approach furnished by Christianity 
to the classical dialogue-form of literature is to be found in the 
middle sections of the Fourth gospel, where Jesus and the Jews 
are made to debate in a thoroughly controversial fashion. This 
marks the passage of early Christianity into its dogmatic stage, 
when it was confronted with rival systems, Jewish, Gnostic, and 
pagan (cp. P. Gardner, Exploratio Evangelica, pp. 164-165 ; 
Moffatt, ZZ. 34 f.); it is the first phase of the dialogue in 
Christian hands as an instrument of anti-Jewish propaganda. 


Later instances of this dialogue-form in anti-Jewish and anti-pagan 
propaganda multiply from the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus and Justin 
onwards; it naturally became, as in the old philosophic style, a literary 
weapon in the controversies between one school of Christian and another (e.g. 
Bardesanes, Jerome, pseudo-Adamantius, etc.). 


(ὁ) A cognate form of the dialogue, the diatridé, has also 
passed into the early Christian literature, although the NT writ- 
ings contain merely a few rudimentary traces of its vogue and 
influence. The διατριβή was a dialogue transformed into a 
monologue, in which the imaginary opponent appears by way of 
φησίν (inguit), He is cited, only to be refuted; his words 
are quoted in order to form the text of a fresh outburst on the 
part of the speaker. When the method is skilfully managed, as, 
e.g. in Arrian’s descriptions of Epictetus, the effect is vivacious 
and telling. The interest of the déatridé was primarily ethical ; 
hence its popularity among the later Stoics and even among Jewish 
Christian (Philo) and early Christian (Clem. Alex.) writers on 
religion.* One trace of the darpiBy-style is to be detected in 

*Cp. Wendland, Philo und die Kynisch-Stoische Diatribé (1895), p. 7, 
‘*Wenn neutestamentlichen Schriften manche Begriffe und Ideen, Stil- 
formen und Vergleiche mit der philosophischen Litteratur gemeinsam sind, 
so ist es nicht ausgeschlossen, dass die Diatribe schon auf Stiicke der 
urchristlichen Litteratur einen gewissen Einfluss ausgeiibt, den man sich 
nicht einmal litterarisch vermittelt zu denken braucht.” The last clause is 
important. A number of the diatribe-forms spring naturally from the moral 


tension and spiritual conflict set up by the new faith. Cp. Heinrici’s Di 
litter. Charakter des NT Schriften (1908), 11 f., 47, 66. 


THE ADDRESS AND THE EPISTLE 47 


Paul’s habit of quoting some phrase of his opponents in order to 
refute their arguments. Introduced by φησίν, just as in Epictetus, 
these citations lend vivacity to the style; they also suggest the 
genetic relations between the dialogue and the epistle, between 
the spoken language of discussion and the epistolary idiom. 

(c) The address, based usually on the older scriptures, and 
therefore to a large extent exegetical as well as hortatory, was 
described * in philosophic language (Lucian, Zim. 10; Elian, 
v. hist. 313) as ὁμιλία (cp. Ac 2011} 2416; Ignat. ad. Polyk. 5), and 
afterwards as διάλεξις or disputatio. It differs from the διατριβή 
in being less conscious of an opponent ; what it presupposes is 
an audience to be convinced, rather than a single adversary to 
be refuted. This literary form underlies the homilies of the 
gospels and most of the later epistles. 

(4) The epistle and the oral address were of kindred origin. 
Long before the rise of Christianity the rhetorical schools had 
been in the habit of throwing their ideas into the form of 
epistles, and the obvious similarity between the audience who 
heard an address and the readers of an epistle, the frequent use 
of the second person in exhortation, and the presence of a 
flowing, flexible element in the argument, helped to develop the 
use of the epistolary form for ends which were wider than those 
of private correspondence.t It is often a real problem to 
determine whether a given writing is a λόγος or an ἐπιστολή. In 
many cases the epistolary form is little more than a literary 
device. One speech of Demosthenes actually came to be 
published under the title of ἐπιστολὴ Anpocbevods, and it was 
natural that later writers, addressing a wide public, should 
adopt, for the sake of dramatic effect and point, the epistolary 
form of composition as the nearest to that of the oration. 
Furthermore, a speech did not require to have been spoken in 
order to be published ; and, asa matter of fact, it was the custom 
even of historians{ to write for earers—the form in this case 
being all the more natural as the readers would read the volume 
aloud.§ 


*See Hilgenfeld’s Ketzergesch. d. Ure. 11. 

t Cp. Aristides, xii. p. 148 Ὁ, ὅπερ γε καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς εἶπον ἣ ὅτι 
βούλεσθε καλεῖν τὸ βιβλίον. 

tCp. Rohde, Griech. Roman, pp. 304 f. 

§ Lucian, adv. indoct, 2 (ἀναγινώσκεις ἔνια πάνυ ἐπιτρέχων φθάνοντος τοῦ 
ὀφθαλμοῦ τὸ στόμα). 


48 PROLEGOMENA 


The epistle had been bound up in its earlier stages in Greek 
literature with the dialogue.* The philosophical discussions 
which were native to the genius of the latter had acquired fresh 
literary form in epistolography ; + the epistle, said Artemon (the 
editor of Alexander the Great’s correspondence in the second 
century), is a sort of semi-dialogue. Consequently a personal 
note pervaded it. A treatise might be, and often had to be, 
abstract and impersonal, but the affinity of the epistle to the 
oral address on the one hand and the dialogue upon the other, 
naturally tended to present in it the question and answer, the 
play of sentiment, and the dialectic movement inevitable to any 
reproduction of personal intercourse. The treatise dealt in a 
more or less systematic way with some philosophic subject; ἢ 
it conveyed instruction directly and didactically. But the 
epistle rose alongside of it to reach circles or groups of people 
in a less formal fashion; and when philosophic scholars multi- 
plied and the world of culture grew less restricted than before, 
the epistle acquired a special vogue as a channel for conveying 
instruction to people whose common interests united them in 
some pursuit or science. The correspondence of Epicurus 
marks a distinct stage in this literary evolution. His letters to 
philosophers and private individuals had in some cases only a 
semi-private object (cp. Hirzel, der Dialog, i. pp. 355 f.); they 
discussed such topics as natural philosophy and astronomy, 
besides ethical themes, and his scholars continued the practice. 
Epistles became not merely the ties knitting like-minded scholars 


*The various materials and phases are collected in Hercher’s Efzstolo- 
graphi grect. See, further, Peter, of. cét. (below) pp. 213 f., on ‘‘ der Brief 
als Einkleidung fiir Flugschriften, wissenschaftliche und litterarische Erorter- 
ungen, Mahnungen, Widmungen,” and especially Rudolf Hirzel’s der Dialog, 
i. pp. 353 f., ii. pp. 8 f. 

+ The changes made by Paul and other early Christians in the formulz, 
¢.g., of the introductory address, are noticeable. It is only in Ac 1523 (23”) 
and Ja 1 that the ethnic ὁ δεῖνα τῷ δεῖνι χαίρειν is employed ; the former 
is not a Christian letter, while in the latter, by a literary device like that 
in the third and eighth of the Platonic epistles, the opening is linked to 
what follows. The origin of the χαίρειν formula was connected with the 
news (εὐαγγέλιον) of victory, according to tradition (Lucian, de /apsu in 
salutando, 3; cp. G. A. Gerhard’s ‘‘ Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des 
griechischen Briefes,” i., in Phz/ologus, 1905, 27-65). 

t For what follows, see especially Hermann Peter’s der Brief in des 
rémischen Lit/era/ur (1901), pp. 16 f., and Wehofer, ‘‘ Untersuchungen zur 
altchristlichen Epistolographie” (SBA W, 1901, pp. 102 f.). 


ESISTOLARY FORMS 49 


together, but means of instruction, defence, and debate. In the 
treatment of scientific questions the epistle thus acquired a new 
role of its own. It accompanied and promoted the popularising 
of knowledge. Letters, or rather epistles, for example, were 
written on the Copais sea by Crates of Chalkis (cp. Wester- 
mann, de ¢pist. grec. iv. pp. 9 f.), on mathematics (cp. Susemihl, 
i. pp. 419 f.), and antiquities (by Polemon of Ilion); and an 
equally didactic character attached to the letters of Augustus. 
The soil was thus prepared for the growth of epistles and 
epistolary homilies within the sphere of early Christianity. The 
philosophic epistle had long been acclimatised among the Greeks 
and Romans. AHortationes ad philosophiam were composed by 
Augustus as well as by less princely authors (Suet. Aug. Ixxxv.), 
and epistles of consolation are frequent in the correspondence of 
the age (e.g. that of Sulpicius Severus, Cic. ad Fam. iv. 5). The 
letters of Seneca to Lucilius, as has been often noted (cp. e.g. 
Peters, pp. 228 f.), are in reality designed for the young world of 
Rome, and merely dedicated to Lucilius ;* the personal address 
and air are retained, but the object is to furnish all and sundry 
with exhortations and admonitions which may take the place of 
some philosophic friend at παπᾶ. Several even of Seneca’s 
so-called dialogues might be described as epistles. The 
epistolary literature of the early Christians, in fact, almost 
exemplifies the threefold division} made by Cicero into (a) 
epistles or letters which convey instruction or information, (4) 
playful and familiar notes to one’s friends, and (2) letters of 
consolation. The nearest approach to the personal letter, un- 
studied and spontaneous, is Paul’s note to Philemon or 3 John. 
Personal or semi-personal letters, however (like Galatians and 
1 Thessalonians), might contain matter of some permanent 
interest. They might be contributions to some controversy, 


* Luke’s two books, dedicated to Theophilus, are a NT analogy. 

t+ Cp. Martha, /es moralistes sous Pempire Rom. pp. 3f., 23f. The 
Seneca-letters to Lucilius, as Lord Bacon saw, were simply ‘‘ dispersed 
meditations, though conveyed in the form of epistles.” 

t e.g. in his letter of September, 46 B.c., to Trebianus in exile (ad Fam. 
vi. 10. 4), or more explicitly in ad Fam. iv. 13. I and ii. 4 (‘‘ letters, as you 
are well aware, are of many kinds. One is undeniable, the original cause of 
letter-writing indeed, viz., to acquaint the absent with anything which it 
is to their interest or to the writer’s interest that they should know... . 
Two other kinds of letters there are, which mightily please me: the one 
familiar and sportive, the other grave and serious ”’). 


4 


50 PROLEGOMENA 


like the letters of Antony to which Tacitus (Amn. iv. 34) 
and Suetonius (Aug. 63) allude; or discussions of various 
questions, like the epistles of Varro,* Capito, and M. Valerius 
Messalla. The epistolary form, in short, was employed more 
and more to give a vivid and semi-literary dress to dissertations 
upon criticism, jurisprudence, and even science, among the 
Greeks and Romans. Thus partly by the circulation of really 
personal letters, and partly by the adoption of the epistolary form 
for public or semi-public ends, the transition was made from the 
private letter to the epistle or epistolary homily. The NT 
epistles vary between both; the former was transmuted into 
the shape of a letter addressed to some church for which the 
writer (Paul) felt a strong personal affection ;} the latter passed, 
in the sub-Pauline period, into writings which were for the most 
part epistolary in form only (1 John, James, 2 Peter). 


VI. 
THE CIRCULATION OF THE NT WRITINGSS 


Paul and some other early Christian writers|| dictated, not 
because, like Charles the Great, they could not write, but for 
purposes of speed and convenience. A letter might be either 
written with one’s own hand or dictated to a scribe or secretary 
(ταχυγράφοι, librarit, notarit). In one case, the amanuensis of 
Paul @ inserts a greeting from himself in the midst of the apostle’s 


* Cp. Ritschl’s Opuscuda, iii. pp. 476 f. 

+ Deissmann’s valuable but too narrow antithesis (Διό Studies, pp. 
1-60) is reproduced by W. Soltau (see /ahrbiicher fiir α΄. klass. Alterthum, 
1906, 17-29). 

+ Similarly 3 John and the letters of Ignatius prove that a real letter 
could be written to achurch. This fact of Christian intercourse prevents the 
category of ‘‘letter or epistle” from applying, without qualification, to early 
Christian correspondence. 

§ Cp. HN. 123f. ; Gregory, Canon and Text of NT, 299f.; and Sit 
W. M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches (1904), pp. 23f., ‘‘ The 
Christian Letters and their Transmission.” 

\| Ignatius (see Lightfoot on Ro 1o'), Origen (Eus. H. .Ε. vi. 23. 2), and 
others; cp. Pliny’s ef. ix. 36. 2, and Jerome’s 422. 21. 42. On the later 
use of dictare=to compose, see Norden, ii. 957 f. 

J Tertius was a scriba literarius of Paul, for the time being, who took 
down, as a private secretary, what the apostle had to say (cp. Marquardt’s 
Das Privatleben der Romer, 1.3 pp. 151 f.), and made copies cf it if necessary. 
Such no/arii were frequently stenographers. 


CIRCULATION OF NT WRITINGS SI 


salutations (Ro 1622) ; but as a rule the author speaks throughout. 
It was apparently Paul’s ordinary custom to dictate his corre- 
spondence, though, to authenticate a letter, he might add a 
salutation in his own handwriting (2 Th 317, 1 Co 1671, Col 438). 
Such letters and epistles were written either on wax-covered 
tablets with a stilus, or with a reed-pen and ink on parchment 
(Ὁ 2.60... 2 Ππ| 5 7π|15} 10 Paul's) remark? in Gal) 6! 
means that he himself wrote part of the epistle personally,* it is 
likely that the latter method was employed. His handwriting, 
like that of Cicero, ‘on charta with a pen would have been 
much more easily recognised than his initials carved with a sti/us 
on wax. Moreover, the use of pen and paper would be so 
obviously more suitable for long letters.” ¢ 


The shape and the size ot some of the recently discovered papyri at 
Oxyrhynchus indicate that even for religious, as well as for literary purposes, 
the papyrus codex was in use throughout Egypt before the third century A.D. 
Instead of the papyrus in roll form, the papyrus in book form was more 
widely and more early used than has hitherto been suspected. t 


For various reasons, partly owing to the uncertainties of 
communication, letters of special moment were copied§ before 
being dispatched ; and more than one copy was sometimes sent, 
lest one of them should go astray (cp. eg. Cic. ad Ham. ix. 16. 1). 
The carelessness and dishonesty of letter-carriers were thus 
checkmated to some extent (ad Fam. iv. 4. 1). This con- 
sideration has some bearing on the literary characteristics of 
2 Thessalonians and Ephesians. Furthermore, the same letter 
might be sent to different persons, as was the practice of 
Epicurus.|| ‘I have wanted,” writes Cicero to Cornificius, “a 


* The sender occasionally wrote part himself, if he wished to be particu- 
larly confidential (Cic. ad. «411. xi. 24). 

+ Tyrrell’s Correspondence of Cicero, vol. i. p. lv. Quintilian’s advice, in 
favour of wax tablets (/stzt. Orat. x. 31f.) for jottings or notes (Lk 15), is 
due to the fact that erasures were more easily made on wax than on parch- 
ment. Illustrations of wax tablets are given by W. Schubart (Das Buch bei 
den Griechen u. Rimern, 1907, 16f.). 

1 Cp. Grenfell and Hunt, 7he Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ii. (1899) pp. 1-3, 
and W. Schubart, Das Buch bei den Griechen und Rimern, 1907, pp. 107 f. 

§ Not by the author, however. ‘‘ Quis solet eodem exemplo pluris dare, 
qui sua manu scribit ?” (ad Yam, xviii. 2). 

I! So, too, Seneca (ad Lucid. xvi. g9. 1: ‘‘epistulam, quam scripsi 
Marullo, cum filium paruulum amisisset et diceretur molliter ferre, misi 
tibi ”). 


52 PROLEGOMENA 


letter from you addressed to my very own self” (ad Fam. xii 
30. 3). Even without the alteration of the address, a letter 
could be copied and scattered broadcast for a wider audience (so 
Cic. ad Aft. viii. 9. 1), in which case the epistle became almost 
a tract or pamphlet. Such must have been the method with 
epistolary homilies like Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Peter, 
as well as with the Apocalypse. 

In the case of the NT, the autographs themselves perished at 
an early date. That they were no longer in existence in the 
second quarter of the second century is evident from the fact 
that Marcion could be charged with falsifying their text. Had 
the autographs been available, the accusations of Tertullian and 
others would have been superfluous; the editors and correctors 
of the text would have been refuted simply by the production of 
the autograph itself. Within less than a century the autograph 
of the apocalypse, e.g., had disappeared; a number of copies 
existed which were no longer uniform.* This is hardly to be 
wondered at ; for, once a document was copied, there would not 
be the same interest in preserving the idiypadov. Tertullian 
seems in one passage to appeal to the originals: “ percurre 
ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipse adhuc_ cathedre 
apostolorum suis locis president, apud quas ipse authentice 
ditere eorum recitantur, sonantes uocem et representantes faciem 
uniuscuiusque” (prescr. heret. 36). But the phrase italicised 
probably means no more than “originals,” in the sense of 
uncorrupted, genuine copies, as opposed either to translations or 
to interpolated (or mutilated) editions, such as those issued by 
Marcion. If he really meant autographs, the passage would 
require to be set down to his rhetorical temperament. t 


Naturally the wear and tear was felt primarily at the opening and at the 
end of a manuscript. Well-known instances of opening sentences having 
been lost are to be found in Plutarch’s Veta Themdstoclis and three of the 
books of the elder Seneca’s Controuersiae. This is what underlies the theories 
about Hebrews having lost its original address, and Mark its original ending, 
by accident. The errors of copyists in the body of the work explain the 
variations in Apoc 13/8 (Iren. v. 30. 1, ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις 
ἀντιγράφοις κτλ.), etc., as well as the primitive corruptions which must have 


* Origen (in Mt 19") similarly attests the widespread diversities in the 
copies of the gospels. 

+ Cp. Cobet and Kuenen’s V7 ad fidem Codicis Vaticani (1860), pp. 
261. 


CIRCULATION OF NT WRITINGS 53 


arisen very early, since there is no ripple of variation in the MSS or versions. 
A clear case of the latter occurs in Ac 2°, where "Iovdalav, between Μεσο- 
ποταμίαν and τε καὶ Καππαδοκίαν, is certainly wrong. The alternatives are 
to omit it altogether (so, ¢.g., Harnack, 47. iii. 65f.), or to regard it asa 
corruption of Συρίαν (Jerome on Is 117°, Blass), Λυδίαν (Bentley), ᾿Αδιαβαίαν 
(Nestle, ZVW., 1908, 253-254), ᾿Αρμενίαν (Tert. adv. Jud. 7; Aug. Contra 
Fund. 9), ᾿Αραμαίαν (W. H. P. Hatch, ZVW., 1908, 255-256), Ioviay (as in 
1 Mac 88; Cheyne, £Az. 2169), ᾿Ινδίαν (Erasmus, Schmid, Zahn), ᾿Ιδυμαίαν 
(Bentley, Barth, Spitta), or Βιθυνίαν (cp. below, ‘ First Peter,’ § 3, note). 


When an epistle of Paul was received by a local church, it 
would be laid up in the archives of the community (scrznéa, 
κιβώτιον, κίστη), just as private letters were collected in a family,* 
or public epistles in the pre-Christian Jewish synogogues. 
Copies + would be taken and issued to the various churches 
embraced in the address. In a town of any size, where there 
were several house-churches (Col 415), an epistle would be 
probably copied, even though it was not a circular letter; but 
from Col 416 we may infer that the exchange of letters between 
churches was not yet a matter of course. A church would 
retain its own letter, normally. Was it taken out from time to 
time for purposes { of discussion or reference ? or did the church 
read the epistle regularly at worship? The incidental reference 
of Pliny (ef. x. 98) is silent on any ἀνάγνωσις, and the evidence 
of Justin shows that it was the gospels and books of the OT 
prophets which were read weekly. But the growing prestige of 
the apostles must have led during the early part of the second 
century to the reading of their epistles as a part of public 
worship, though the process of their elevation to the rank of 
scriptures remains obscure. Eventually, the church authorities 
became responsible for what was thus read, as we see from the 
well-known case of Serapion.§ The distinguishing characteristic 
of canonical writings was that they were read aloud in the 
worship of the churches. Subsequently a distinction was drawn 
between writings which were read on Sundays and writings 


* Cp. Peter, Der Brief, pp. 33f. 

+ Cp. Dzjatzko in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encyclopidie der class. Altertums- 
wissenschaft, iii. 966 f. 

{ Perhaps also to let individual members copy out parts of it for their 
ywn purposes. 

§ The growing unity of the church, and the need of safeguarding Christians 
from heretical scriptures, led to the rapid diffusion of the NT writings ; but 
this was by no means uniform, as the evidence of the Canon in various 
churches is enough to prove, except in the case of the gospels. 


54 PROLEGOMENA 


which, though used for edification, did not attain to this rank. 
But the primitive age of Christianity knew nothing of this 
classification. 


The allusions to reading in the early Christian literature 
almost invariably (Mk 1314, Apoc 18, 1 Ti 413) denote the 
public reading of the scriptures in the churches.* How far 
the early Christians, and even the apostles, were able to read, is 
uncertain. The accomplishment was not universal, and although 
the education of the average Christian in the primitive church 
need not be ranked so low as, eg., by Paul Glaue in his 
monograph on Die Vorlesung hetliger Schriften tn Gottesdienste 
(Teil i., 1907), pp. 13-30, still, the fact that many members 
were comparatively uneducated, and that even when they were 
not the spoken word was preferred in worship—this, together 
with the expense of copies, corroborates the view that the large 
majority of early Christians knew their scriptures mainly by the 
hearing of the ear. 


The practice of reading aloud one’s own compositions was a corollary to 
the earlier habit of reciting the works of dead authors. In the former case 
the object was sometimes to benefit the audience; reading thus resembled 
the modern lecture (cp. Epict. D7zss. iii. 23. 7f.). But more often an 
author recited his work to a chosen audience in order to get their critical 
opinion. ‘‘The audience at recitations may be compared with the modern 
literary reviews, discharging the functions of a preventive and emendatory, 
not merely of a correctional tribunal. Before publication a work might thus 
become known to more hearers than it would now find readers: in the same 
way specimens of a forthcoming work are now made known through popular 
magazines. After publication t it might still be recited, not only by the 
author, but by others, with or without his leave, in the country or the 
provinces as well as in the city, before public or private assemblies” (Mayor 
on Juv. 3°). It is the latter practice which throws light on the propagation 
and circulation of the early Christian scriptures, which were not written for 
any literary ends. This applies even to literary epistles like James and 
Ephesians, which were pastorals, written for no definite audience. The 
homily, cast in the form of an epistle, was a recognised literary feature 
among Jewish and Greek, as well as Roman,f circles, before the early 


* The recitation of the gospel-stories in the Antioch church was probably 
a source of information, ¢g., for Luke (cp. Salmon’s Human Element in 
Gospels, pp. 26f.). 

+ On the meaning of ‘publication,’ see G. H. Putnam’s Authors and 
their Public in Ancient Times? (1894), pp. 78 f. 

t Cicero’s letter to Lentulus Spinther (ad Fam. i. 9), ¢.g.. approximates 
to a philosophical discourse or a speech, and the famous Commentariolum 
petitionts is as much an essay on political methods as anything else. For 
further examples of the epistolary εἰσαγωγή in Roman literature, see Norden 


in Hermes (1905), pp- 524 f. 


LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS 55 


Christians began to write. Even though it was marked, for the sake of 
vividness, by appeals to Aearers and the like, it was designed originally and 
directly for readers. The early Christian homily shared these characteristics 
of form, but it was ultimately designed to reach audiences not individuals, 
and the channel was public reading in gatherings for worship. 


VIL. 


SOME LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NT 
WRITINGS. 


This practice of reading aloud the scriptures, even before 
they were scriptures in the canonical sense of the term, helped 
to determine insensibly their literary form. It was a pre-natal 
influence. The profound effect which Plato ascribes to Homer 
in Hellenic education and politics was due to hearing rather 
than to reading. It was the solemn and didactic recitation of the 
poems by ῥαψῳδοί, who sought to bring home not only the words 
but the spirit of Homer, which enabled the audience to sustain 
its feeling of kinship with the original. The influence of the 
early Christian writings, particularly the gospels, operated under 
similar conditions. The large majority of Christians only 
listened to them in worship or learnt their contents in the 
catechetical instruction of the church. Both letters and gospels, 
as well as the tracts which we know as homilies and pastorals, 
were written for the most part with this end in view; their close 
connection with the address and the dialogue (see above, pp. 48 f.) 
determined their adherence to the forms and spirit of a rhetoric 
which corresponded to the needs of actual life. 

The so-called metrical prose, or prose which recognised the 
use of a certain clausula, passed from the Asiatic school of 
rhetoric with some of the Roman authors, such as Seneca, Pliny, 
and Cicero, who managed to preserve ease and freedom under 
a more or less conscious recognition of certain general but 
unwritten laws of rhythm and diction. The existence of this 
rhythmic element need not be supposed to impair necessarily 
the spontaneity of a writing. Ancient standards of composition 
admitted, even in writings of fresh and apparently unstudied 
grace, such as Cicero’s letters of consolation,* a scrupulous 

* Zielinski’s Das Clauselgesetz in Cicero’s Reden (1904) is discussed by 


A. Ὁ. Clarke (Class. Rev., 1905, 164 f.), and Bornecque’s La Prose Metrique 
dans la Correspondance de Cicéron, by Prof. Tyrrell (Hermath., 1905, 289 f.). 


56 PROLEGOMENA 


attention to the niceties of rhythm, cadence, and accent, ard 
a care for laws of sound in style which may seem strained and 
hyper-ingenious to modern tastes. Modern theorists often state 
it in extravagant forms. But, fanciful methods apart, if the 
ancients really read with their ears as well as with their eyes,* 
it is quite intelligible how even prose style, as Cicero and 
Quintilian maintain, could observe certain poetical canons ; 
without being metrical, as Aristotle put it,t prose style must not 
be wholly unrhythmical. History, said Quintilian, is next to 
poetry; it is guodam modo carmine solutum, and Luke’s writings 
show how effective cadences and easy rhythms could be present 
to the mind of an ancient writer whose aim was to convince and 
impress, not to display the finish and mastery of his own style, 
nor to observe hard and fast canons of rhythm. Thus it is 
with early Christian writings like Hebrews just as with some 
of the most effective prose-orations of antiquity; they were 
composed by men trained in this spirit of artistic symmetry. In 
the minds of those who composed or read the early Christian 
books there was no primary thought of intellectual entertainment. 
None, with the partial exceptions of the two Lucan writings 
and Hebrews, can be described as a literary product. Faith 
was their germ and their design. They were composed and 
employed to edify the Christian communities for which they 
were originally written, and among which they came to circulate. 
But some at least of them, like many earlier works in classical 
literature, are instances of how style and fervour were not 
incompatible, and how they were meant to catch the hearer’s 
heart, as the Christian message fell effectively upon his ears. 

The presence of this rhetorical element in the early Christian 
writers is felt in reminiscences of figures common to the Greek 
prose of the day,{ and in the construction of sentences and 
even larger sections, as, ¢.g., in an epistle like Hebrews. The 
former is illustrated by plays on words like λιμοίλοιμοί, 

* Some of Paul’s epistles, like those of Ignatius, gain incredibly in 
emphasis when read aloud. Public reading must have brought out their 
point and charm, in many passages. 

+ In ch. viii. of his Rhetoric (bk. 3) he handles the need and structure of 
rhythm in literary prose. Cp. G. L. Hendrickson in Amer. Journ. of 
Philology (1904), 126f., and the general discussion in Norden, i. 92f., 134 f. 

t Cp. the collection of Pauline instances in J. F. Béttcher’s essay, de paro- 


nomasia finitimisque et figuris Paulo apostolo frequentatis (Leipzig, 1824), and 
R. Bultmann’s 521} der Paul. Predigt u. die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (1910). 


LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS 57 


ἔμαθεν-ἔπαθεν, φθόνου-φόνου (Ro 129), ἀσυνέτους-ἀσυνθέτους (131), 
πολλοῖς πολλάκις (2 Co 833), etc. The parallelism of the Greek 
prose (παρίσωσις) and of later Latin writers like Apuleius, how- 
ever, is one of form rather than of thought ¢ (so Norden, of. ctv. ii. 
816 f.); the Semitic parallelism, like that of the Finnish Kalevala, 
develops an idea in two or more strophes, and this is specially 
characteristic of the strophes and anti-strophes in the gospels. 
It is in Paul, particularly, that the style, for all its rabbinic dialectic, 
shows traces of the Hellenic element, due to the widespread 
influence of rhetoric on pre-Christian prose, especially in Asia 
Minor; it is denoted by the presence of balanced periods ¢ and 
a clearly marked evolution of strophic formations, with themes, 
refrains, etc. Special attention was paid to the sequence of 
accents in asentence. As the writing was often written to be 
read aloud, it was composed by one whose ear was sensitive 
to the harmony of the style, the fall of the antithesis, and the 
music of the period. More than once in Paul it becomes an 
open question whether he is quoting from an early Christian 
hymn, or developing half-unconsciously the antitheses of his 
glowing thought. A good case in point is furnished by 1 Co 
1542-48 ; 
σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, 
ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ" 
σπείρεται ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ, 
ἐγείρεται ἐν δόξῃ" 


σπείρεται ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, 
ἐγείρεται ἐν δυνάμει. 


Elsewhere, however, the genuine rhetoric§ of the speaker is 


* Further exx. in Ro 2! 516 128 14%, 

t+ Cp. E. du Méril’s Essaz philosophique sur le principe et les formes de la 
verstfication (1841), pp. 47 f. 

tCp. J. Schmidt on ‘ das rhythmische Element in Cicero’s Reden’ 
(Wiener Studien, 1893, pp. 209 f.), with Blass on rhythm in the Attic 
orators (Neue Jahrb. fiir das klass. Altertum, 1900, 416-431), and H. Peter 
(tézd., 1898, pp. 637-654, ‘rhetorik u. Poesie im klass. Alterthum’; Der 
Brief, pp. 25 f., on rhythmic element in epistolography). 

§ Cp. J. Weiss, Beztrage zur paulinischen Rhetorik (reprint from 7%.S7.), 
die Aufgaben d. neutest. Wissenschaft (1908), pp. 11 f., Heinrici (— Meyer, 
2 Cor. 436 f.), and U. von Wilamowitz in Der Kultur der Gevenwart, i. 8, 
pp. 156 f. Blass (Dze Rhythmen der asian. und rim. Kunstprosa, 1905, 
SK., 1906, 304 f.) has pushed this theory to extremes, which involve an 
arbitrary treatment of the Pauline text and an unreal estimate of the 
apostle’s literary ambitions (cp. Deissmann, 7ZZ., 1905, 231 f.; W. G. 
Jordan, Theol. Litteratur-Blatt, 1905, 481 f., and Norden, GGA., 1901 


58 PROLEGOMENA 


felt through the written words; they show unpremeditated art 
of the highest quality, as, ¢.g., in passages like the hymn to love 
(1 Co 13), or the great apostrophe and exulting pean of Ro 
gif, “How such language of the heart must have penetrated 
the souls of people who were accustomed to listen to the silly 
rigmaroles of the Sophists! In such passages the diction of the 
apostle rises to the heights of Plato in the Phedrus” (Norden, 
ij, 506). In short, with Christianity ‘“‘the language of the heart 
was born again. Since the hymn of Cleanthes nothing at once 
so heart-felt and magnificent had been written in Greek as Paul’s 
hymn to love” (2214. 11. 459). 
Elsewhere in the NT fragments of hymns can be definitely 
found, e.g. in τ Ti 416: 
8s ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, 
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, 
ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις, 
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, 


ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, 
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ. 


This is a piece of early Christian hymnody (cp. Col 4156, Eph 
514; Pliny’s 22. x. 98), written in short cola with ὁμοιοτέλευτα 
(cp. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, ii. 852 f.), which probably 
served as a semi-liturgical confession of faith (Klopper, ZWT,, 
1902, 336f.). The early church, for all its defects, had not yet 
lost sight of the truth that any creed worthy of acceptance should 
be fit for use in the praise and worship of believing men. A 
similar five-lined stanza, on the birth of Jesus, is inserted in the 
nineteenth ode of Solomon (cp. ZU. xxxv. 4, p. 51). 2 Ti 21-18 
is another fragment of an early hymn: 


el yap συναπεθάνομεν, Kal συνζήσομεν" 
el ὑπομένομεν, καὶ συνβασιλεύσομεν" 
εἰ ἀρνησόμεθα, κἀκεῖνος ἀρνήσεται ἡμᾶς" 
εἰ ἀπιστοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς μένει. 


The hymns in the Apocalypse and possibly the songs in Lk 1- 
are further instances of early Christian song. It was not until 
later that verse included polemic (cp. Iren. i. 15. 6). 


593 f.). For other literary forms, e.g. the παραβολή, the παροιμία, the ἀπορία, 
and the allegory, see pp. 77f., 313f. of Konig’s Sty/istik, Rhetortk, Poettk in 
Bezug auf dte biblische Litteratur (1900), PRE. vi. 688 f. and xvii. 733 f., 
and ERE. i. 328 f 


CHAPTERSE 
THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL. 


LITERATURE.—The patristic commentaries (cp. C. H. Turner, DB. v. 484- 
530, and /7:S. iv. 134f.) on Paul’s epistles are more valuable for exegesis 
than for historical criticism ; their outstanding contributions are the early 
homilies of Chrysostom and ‘ Ambrosiaster’ (fourth century), the editions 
of Theodore of Mopsuestia (ed. Swete, Cambridge, 1880-2), Theodoret 
of Cyrus, Pelagius, and Euthalius, from the fifth century, followed by 
John of Damascus (eighth century), Maurus of Mayence (ninth century), 
Oecumenius (tenth century), Theophylact, Peter the Lombard, and 
Euthymius Zigaberus (twelfth century), with the thirteenth century exfosztio 
of Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Lyra’s ferfetua postil/a (fourteenth century), 
and the fifteenth century Azofatzones of Laurentius Valla. The sixteenth 
century witnessed a slight increase of attention to the historical environment 
of the epistles, although dogmatic prepossessions still controlled the large 
majority of commentators, Roman catholic (e.g. Erasmus, Annotationes, 1510, 
Paraphrases in omnes eptstolas Fault, 1521 ; Catharinus, 1551; Gregorius, 
1564; Maldonatus ; Estius; Cornelius a Lapide, 1635 [best ed. by Padovani, 
Rome, 1908 f.], and Leander, Commentaria tn epist. omnes S. Pauli, Paris, 
1663) and Protestant (e.g. Bugenhagen’s Anmotationes, 1524; N. Hemminge, 
1571; Zwingli’s Adnotationes [Ziirich, 1539, pp. 518-39]; Calvin; H. 
Bullinger’s Commentarii [Ziirich, 1544, 498-551]; Zanchi’s Commentarius 
1594, and Beza). The most notable contributions from the seventeenth 
century, in the shape of complete editions, are the works of J. Piscator 
(Analysis logica epp. Paul. 1638), Conrad Vorstius, Grotius (1641), Balduin 
(1655), Cappellus (1658), Chemnitz (1667), Locke (1684), M. Pole, Syzopsés 
(vol. iv., 1694), and Hammond (1699). The eighteenth century produced 
the R. C. expositions of Bernardinus a Piconio (1703), Alexandre Noel 
(Rouen, 1710), Hardouin the Jesuit, and Ant. Remy (1739), together with 
Bengel’s great Guomon (1742), besides the Cure philologice et critice in x 
posteriores S. Pauli epistolas of J. C. Wolf (1734), Kypke’s Odservationes 
sacra in Novi Testamenti libros (1755), J. D. Michaelis, Paraphrasis und 
Anmerkungen tiber die Briefe Pauli® (1769), Rosenmiiller’s Scho/ia (1777), 
and J. B. Koppe’s edition of the NT (second ed. 1791). 

The nineteenth century has produced several more or less complete 
editions of the Pauline epistles, notably those of J. F. Weingart (Comment- 
arius perpetuus tn decem apostoli Pauli quas uolgo dicunt epistolas minores, 
Gotha, 1816), T. Belsham (London, 1823), Alford (Greek Testament, ii.-iii.), 
Hofmann (1862f.), and Wordsworth® (1871), with Scholz (1830), Winser 
(1834), de Wette (1835 f), Olshausen (1840f.), Turnbull (1854), Blomfield’s 
Gretk Testament (1855), Ewald (Sendschretben des Paulus, 1857), Bisping’s 
Exegetische Handbuch zu den Kee Pauli (1855f.), Reuss (Les &pitres 


60 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


Paulin., 1878, in the third volume of his NT Section of Za Bzb/e), Heydt 
(Exeget. Commentar zu ἡ Briefen, Elberfeld, 1882), Manoury (Paris, 1878- 
82), P. Rambaud (Paris, 1888), L. Bonnet (Lausanne, 1892), J. van 
Steenkiste (Commentarius in omnes S. Pauli epistolas, Bruges, 1899), B. 
Weiss (vol. ii. of his Das NT Handausgabe, 1902), and A. Lemonnyer 
(Epitres de S. Paul*, Paris, 1905). 

Separate introductions to the Pauline epistles have been issued by H. 
Bottger (Beztrage zur Einleitung in die paulin. Briefe, Gottingen, 1837 f.), 
P. J. Gloag (Edinburgh, 1874), and Dr. R. D. Shaw’ (Edinburgh, 1909). 
The epistles are also commented on in several of the special monographs on 
Paul, e.g. those in English by Lewin, Conybeare and Howson, and Farrar, 
in French by Renan, and in German by Clemen and Schrader. 


When the Scillitan martyrs were asked what they had in 
their satchel or chest, their leader Speratus replied: ‘libri 
[ai καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βίβλοι, 1.4. the gospels] et epistulz Pauli uiri iusti.’ 
This was in a.p. 180. But the unique position assigned by the 
church to Paul’s epistles can be traced back to the age preceding 
Marcion. Marcion drew up am edited collection of the apostle’s 
letters. The church’s collection may have been occasioned, in 
self-defence, by this action, but the probability is (cp. C. H. 
Turner in /7S. x. 357 f.) that as Marcion’s edition of Luke was 
constructed out of the church’s third gospel, so his Pauline 
canon was ‘a similar réchauffé of an existing Pauline collection 
in the church.’ Whether this corpus Paulinum can be dated as 
early as the age of Ignatius, or even earlier (as Zahn argues), 
is a question which can only be asked, in the paucity of the 
available evidence. It is hardly likely that the idea of sucha 
collection occurred to Paul or to any one during his lifetime,* 
but if the church at Philippi was anxious to possess any extant 
» letters of Ignatius (Polyk. ad Phil. 13), it is reasonable to infer 
that a similar desire must have already prompted local collections 
of Paul’s letters, long before there was any thought of ranking them 
with the scriptures (2 P 4316. This would be rendered possible 
by the close communications + between churches, not only in 
one district but abroad. What is certain is that the early 
Christian literature begins for us with Paul’s correspondence. 

Genesis, says Tertullian in the fifth book of his treatise 
against Marcion, Genesis promised me Paul long ago. For, he 
adds (playing on a Latin rendering of Gn 49%’), when Jacod 
was pronouncing typical and prophetic blessings upon his sons, he 

* He had not the literary self-consciousness of Cicero (A¢t. xvi. 5. 5). 

t Cp. Harnack, 2740. i. 369f. 


PAULINE CHRONOLOGY 61 


turned to Benjamin and said, ‘ Benjamin ts a ravening wolf, tn 
the morning he shall devour his prey, but towards evening he shall 
provide food. He foresaw that Paul would spring from 
Benjamin, ‘a ravening wolf, devouring his prey in the morning’: 
that is, in early life he would lay waste the flocks of God asa 
persecutor of the churches ; then towards evening he would provide 
food: that ts, in his declining years he would train the sheep of 
Christ as a teacher of the nations. This fanciful exegesis of the 
African Father brings out the fact that Paul did not begin to 
write tke letters by which he is best known until he had been a 
Christian for about twenty years. So far as it can be recon- 
structed from the extant sources, the activity of Paul as a 
Christian evangelist and apostle falls into two main periods or 
passages.* The first of these, (a) covering about seventeen 
years, includes his work in τὰ κλίματα τῆς Συρίας καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας, 
with Tarsus and Antioch as his headquarters (Gal 131, Ac 930 
115f), and Barnabas as his main coadjutor. The second (é) 
dates from the crisis at Jerusalem, which impelled him to go 
further afield (Ac 15° 16°); after hesitating about his route 
and sphere, he started upon the great mission to Asia Minor, 
Macedonia, and Achaia, which occupied him for six or seven 
years (Ac το, cp. Ro 15%). His coadjutors now were 
principally Silas and Timotheus. Thereafter he was evi- 
dently planning a mission to Spain. The Southern Mediter- 
ranean he probably passed by, as Egypt was being already 
evangelised,t but in the Western Mediterranean he hoped to 
break fresh ground, and ez route to Spain he arranged to pay a 
long-deferred visit to the church at Rome. Meantime, he had 
to discharge his duty to the church at Jerusalem, by handing 
over the proceeds of the collection made by the Christians of 
Macedonia and Achaia on behalf of the poor saints in the 
Jewish capital. The untoward result of his visit is well known 
He left Jerusalem a prisoner, was confined for two years at 
Ceesarea, and finally reached Rome in custody. So far as we 
can see, he did not regain his freedom. ‘The projected tour to 
Spain had to be abandoned, and he never revisited Asia Minor. 


* The older scheme of three mission-tours is to be abandoned in favour 
of this division of his activity into two mission-spheres (cp. von Dobschiitz, 
Probleme des apostolichen Zettalters, 1904, pp. 58f.). 

+ See Harnack, WAC. i. 73f.; Zahn, Skzzzen aus dem Leben d. alten 
Kirche 3 (1898), 143 f.; Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism (1910), pp. 24-26, 


62 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


The extant letters of the apostle fall within or after the 
second period, that is, in the late afternoon of his career. If he 
wrote any letters previous to the crisis at Jerusalem, they have 
perished. ‘The letters to the churches of Thessalonika, Galatia, 
Corinth, and Rome date from (4); the rest of the epistles, so far 
as they are genuine, are the correspondence of a prisoner, and 
were composed either at Czesarea or more probably at Rome. 
Their relative order can be determined with approximate 
accuracy, but their exact dates are bound up with chronological 
calculations based on Tacitus and Josephus, as well as on early 
Christian tradition, which are still matters of dispute. The 
following table (cp. HWVZ. t121f.), reflecting usually the old 
schematism of the three journeys, will give some idea of the 
variety of critical opinion upon the chronology of the apostle’s life : 


- a 

a Ξ 
: ἕ bed ‘2 

. ~ a 

Ξ ἢ | Siok (Mel aun ὦ Ὁ > 

; | αὶ Ὁ 3 | 3 e| 21% ἕ 

ΠῚ = 

RS |e | dal & aid eee 
Oi | Θ᾽ ra 7 Ὁ a rere es ee 


Crucifixion of Jesus . 4 ° 
Conversion of Paul . : . 
First visit to Jerusalem . . 
Second visit to Jerusalem 
(Ac r127f 1225) 
First mission tour. 
Council at Jerusalem 
Second mission tour . 
Third mission tour . 
Arrest in Jerusalem 
Arrival in Rome. . 
Death of Paul . . 
Death of Peter . e 


29 | 29 || 29) || 20 29 | 29/30] 30 | 30 | 30 
35/36] 30 | 29 | 31/32] 34 | 30 | 31/32] 35 32 
38 32 | 34/35] 37 | 33 | 34/35] 38 | 34 


46 | 44 46 | 42 | [44] |] 45 | 44 | 45 


4} 49 | 47 | 46 | 49 | Sx |47(46)} 45 | 52 | 50 

.] 49 | 47 | 47 | 49 | 5x [47(46 46 | 52 |50-53 
ef 52 | 5z | 49 | 52 | 55 | 50 | 49 | 54 |53 57 
“1 56 | ss | 53 | 56 | 59 |54(53)) 53 | 58 | 57 

«| 59 | 57 | 56 | 59 | 62 |57(56)} 56 | 61 | 60 

- | 64/65] 67 64 | 61/62 ou 64 58 |66/67| 67 

. 64 


1 DB. i. 415-4253 JTS. iii. 120-128. 
2 Untersuchungen neut. Zeitverhaltnisse (1894). 


8 Neutest. Zeitgeschichte (1895), 88 15-17; differently in second ed. 1906. 
4 AA. pp. xiii-xiv, etc. 


5 Similarly Laurent (V7 Studien, 67-91), placing the second visit in 47, however, the 
first tour in 47-50, and the second in 52-55. 


6 ACL. ii. 1. 233-239. 7 AA. 164, 172, etc 
8 PRE. xv. 61-88, and JWT. iii. 450 ἔς, 


9 SPT. 363f., as revised in Pauline and other Studies (1906), 345 f. 


A word may be added on the problem of the authenticity * 
of the Pauline letters. Their criticism has passed through a 


* © Authentic,’ in this connection as elsewhere in the criticism of the NT, 
**has reference to the origin only, not to the contents; to say that a 
document is authentic is merely to say that its origin is certain, not that its 
contents are free from error” (C. V. Langlois and C. Seignobos, /x/ro- 
duction aux études historiques, Eng. tr. 1898, p. 159). 


PAULINE CHRONOLOGY 63 


phase corresponding, for example, to that which has occurred 
in the artistic estimate of Giorgione’s pictures: after successive 
verdicts which unreasonably reduced the number of the genuine 
to a minimum, the application of a less rigid and more accurate 
standard has at last revealed the existence of a larger number of 
authentic canvases in the one case and of epistles in the other. 
This shift of critical opinion has been brought about, for the 
most part, by a gradual recognition of the fact that writers and 
painters do not always work at the same pitch of excellence. 
The progress of historical criticism on Acts and, to a less degree, 
on the sources of the gospels, together with the recent researches 
into the κοινή, gnosticism, and contemporary Judaism, has also 
helped to determine the authenticity of several Pauline letters 
which were suspected half a century ago. “1 has been the 


a 

2 Ἔ ς ΠΝ 
3 - a Ξ x 2 °c = Ξ | R Ε 3 
2 a Ξ 6 Ω a - x) [η > : J 3 ‘3 
3 Ὄ Ξ o ῳ A ΠῚ 3 a < @ 5 Ε ΞΕ 
ἘΞ ΞΕ γ  Ἐ}»": 
ΞΕ ΘΒ Ve Ct maha We =a Ue 

t 
[30] |31(29)] 33 | 33 30-33 | 
34 | 35 | 38 | 34 | 3r | 32 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 33 | 36/37] 33-35, 
37 | 38 | 47 | 37 | 34 | 35 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 39 | 39 | 36 | 30/40 3735 
45 (44) | 44 44 1 46 | 44 | 45-46 | 
48 | 45-50|bef.51] 44f. 45-47 50/51 46 | 45 | 46 | 45 | 49? 


Sry [eS 2a See 510, se uy ae li SS 152. 55.“ 20. al Vem 

51 52 51 51 | 49-52) 49-51} 52 |52-55| 52 49 51 | 59-53 
55 55 

58 59 58 58 59 56 59 |58/59| 59/60} 57 58 | 58 58 

61 62 61 | 60/61} 62 59 62 | 61/62} 61 60 60 61 

67 64 64 | 63/64} 64 | 65-68 [64] | 67 68 67 


10 Biblical Essays (pp. 215-233). Similarly Aberle, BZ. (1903) 256f., 372f., (1905) 
371-400. 11 Acts (Meyer), pp. 53-60. 
12 Thessalonians (Meyer), pp. 17-18. Similarly von Dobschiitz. 


18 Paulus, i. 411. 14 Student's Life of Paul, pp. 242-259. 
16 /NT. i. pp. 154f. 16 Paul, pp. 13f. 


17 Find. 31f. 18 DB. iii. 696-731. 
19 Pau/ (appendix, vol. ii. pp. 623f.). 20 70. (1896) 353f., Hind. 130. 
31: Alfassungszett des Galaterbriefes (1906), p. 189. 


® Die Chronologie des Paulus (1903), cp. WKZ. (1902) 569-620. 


mission of the nineteenth century to prove that everybody’s 
work was written by somebody else, and it will not be the most 
useless task of the twentieth to betake itself to more profitable 
inquiries” (Saintsbury, History of Criticism, p. 152). The 
epistles to Timotheus and Titus, together with Ephesians, are 
probably Pauline rather than Paul’s ; they belong to the class οἱ 


64 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


literary ἀδέσποτοι in early Christianity. Otherwise! it may be 
assumed that the letters which are grouped under Paul’s name 
in the canon were written by him, whatever processes of editing 
they may have passed through before their incorporation into 
the sacred collection of the church. 


(A) CORRESPONDENCE WITH THESSALONIKA. 


(a) Editions—Georgius Major (Emarratio duarum epp. ad Thess. 
prelecta, 1561); Musculus (Comment. in Phil. Col. Thess. Tim., 1565f.); 
R. Rollock (Edinburgh, 1598); J. A. Gleiche’s Erkldrung (1729); J. A. 
Turretin’s posthumous Comment. theoretico-practicus in epp. ad Thess. 
(1739); P. J. Miiller (1784); F. A. W. Krause (1790); Schleiermacher 
(1823); T. C. Tychsen® (1823); J. F. Flatt, Vorlesungen iiber die briefen 
an die Phil. Col. Thess. (Tiibingen, 1829); Ludwig Pelt (Zfzstolae P. 
apostoli ad Thess. perpetuo tllust. commentario, Greifswald, 1830) *; H. A. 
Schott, p¢stolae ἢ. ad Thess. et Galatas (Leipzig, 1834); Baumgarten- 
Crusius (Commentar tiber Phil. und Thessal. 1848) ; Olshausen (1840, Eng. 
tr. 1851); J. Lillie (New York, 1856); Ewald, Sendschretben des Paulus 
(1857); de Wette® (1864); Meyer® (1867); Hofmann? (1869); Eadie 
(1877); A. J. Mason (in Ellicott’s NT, 1879); Reuss (1878-9); Ellicott ¢ 
(1880) *; H. Reinecke (Leipzig, 1881) ; Alexander (Speaker’s Com. 1881) ; 
Marcus Dods (in Schaff’s Comment. 1882); Hutchison (Edin. 1883); 
Liinemann‘* (— Meyer, Eng. tr. 1884); Gloag (1887); Zockler (in Strack 
und Z.’s Comm. 1888-95); A. Schafer (1890); Schmiedel? (HC. 1892)"; 
Zimmer (in Denkschrift des theol. Seminars Herborn, 1891, and Theol. 
Comment. «. α. Thess. 1894)*; Padovani (1894) ; Jowett, St. Pauls Epp. 
to Thess. Gal. and Romans* (1894); Bornemann (— Meyer, 1894); Light- 
foot (Notes on Epp. of St. Paul, 1895, pp. 1-92); J. Drummond (/aternat. 
Habks to NT, 1899); Gutjahr, Briefe des Paulus. 7. Thess. Gal. (1900) ; 
Adeney (C&., n. d.); G. G. Findlay (( 7. 1904)*; W. Lueken (SWV7.* 
1907); J. M. 8. Baljon (1907); G. Milligan (1908) * ; Wohlenberg? (ZX., 
1908); von Dobschiitz (— Meyer, 1909)*; Moffatt (567. 1910); ΚΕ. 
Mackintosh (Westminster NT, 1910). 

(ὁ) Studies—(i.) general:—P. Schmidt, der erste Th. brief neu erklart, 
nebst einen Exkurs tiber d. 2 gleichn. Brief (1885); L. Monnet, Les épitres aux 
Thess. étude biblique (1889); Sabatier (ZSR. xii. 123 f.); Hausrath, ili. 209 f.; 
Lightfoot (Smith’s DZ, ili. 1477-84)* ; E. de Faye, we vera indole Pauli ap. 
ad Thessal. dissertatio critica (Paris, 1892); Denney (A.xposétor’s Bible, 1892) ; 
McGiffert, 4A. 250f.; Bartlet, 44. 110f.; Pfleiderer, Ure. i. 125-143; 


1 Most doubt attaches to 2 Thessalonians, less to Colossians. A similar 
dubiety prevails, ¢.g., with regard to the two fragments of the epistles which 
are supposed to have been written by Cornelia, the mother of the Giacchi; 
the problem of their authenticity divides scholars like Nipperdey, Mommsen, 
Hubel, and M. Schlelein from those who, like Mercklin and E, Meyer, deny 
their genuineness, 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 65 


von Dobschiitz, Ure. 81f.; Ἐς Trautzsch, Die mindliche Verkiindignng 
des Ap, Paulus (1903); E. Ullern, S. Paul, évangeliste et pasteur des Thess- 
aloniciens. Etude (Nimes, 1903); C. Bruston (R7OR., TGO55, 160) ἔ, 
369 f.) ; Senstius, die Adfassungszezt der Thess. Briefe (1908); R. Scott, The 
Pauline Epistles (1909), 215-233; Liitgert, BZ. xiii. 6 (1909), pp. 55- 
102 (on errorists); Harnack, Das Problem des Zweiten Thessalonicherbriefs 
(1910, SBBA. 560-578). 

(ii.) on the text :—John Phillips, 7e Greek of the First Ep. to the Thess. 
(London, 1751); Zimmer, Der Text der Thessal. Briefe (1893); Baljon, 
(Theol. Studién, 1888, 347-352); Blass, Rhythmen der asian. τ. rim. 
Kunstprosa (1905), pp. 196f. 

(ili.) against Pauline authorship :—Baur in Theol. Jahrb. (1855), pp. 
141-168, and in Paz (ii. 341 f., Eng. tr. ii. 314-340) ; van der Vies, de beide 
brieven aan de Th. (1865); Steck (JP7., 1883, 509-524); Pierson and 
Naber (Veristmilia, laceram conditionem NT exhibentia, 1886, 3-25). 

(iv.) for Pauline authorship:—Grimm (SA., 1850, 780f.); Hilgenfeld 
(ZWT., 1862, 225f., 1866, 295f.); Lightfoot (Bzb/ical Essays, 251-269, 
and in Smith’s DB.) ; Sabatier, Paul, pp. 106f. ; Askwith, /ntrod. to Thess. 
epp. (1902) * ; Lock (DB. iv. 743-749) ; A. C. McGiffert (2.81. 5036-5046) ; 
Zahn, Zzn/. §§ 14-16; Clemen, Paulus, i. 111 f. 


1 THESSALONIANS. 


In addition to the general literature already cited, the (a) editions by 
Calixtus (1654); W. Sclater (Exposition with notes, London, 1619); A. 8. 
Paterson (Edin. 1857); A. Koch? (1855) * ; Rohm (Passau, 1885) ; Johannes, 
Kommentar zum ersten Th. Brief (Dillingen, 1898)*: (6) studies by J. 
Martinus (Axalysis epistolae priorts ad Thess., Groningen, 1663); Lipsius 
(SK., 1854, 905f., ‘*iiber Zweck ἃ. Veranlassung des 1 Th.,” a reply to 
Baur); J. J. Prins, ‘‘de eerste brief van Paulus aan de Thessalonikers ” 
(77., 1885, 2311.) ; von Soden (SX., 1885, 263-310) ἢ; Briickner’s Chron. 
193-199. 


2 THESSALONIANS. 


In addition to the above general literature: (a) against the Pauline 
authorship—Kern ( 7zibing. Zetts. fiir Theol., 1839, 145 f.) ; J. E. C. Schmidt, 
(Zinl. 256f.); Hilgenfeld (ZW 7., 1862, 242-264) ; van Manen, onderzoek naar 
de echtheid van Paulus tweeden brief aan de Thess. (Utrecht, 1865) ; Michelsen 
(7T., 1876, 70-82); Bahnsen (JP7., 1880, 681-705) ; Spitta, Ure. i. 109- 
154; Weizsaicker (4A. i. 295f.); C. Rauch (ZW/7., 1895, 457-465); H. 
J. Holtzmann (ZNW., 1901, 97-108) ; Pfleiderer (Uc. i. 95-101); Wrede 
(7U., Neue Folge, ix. 2, 1903)"; Hollmann (ZVW., 1904, 28-38) ; von 
Soden (77. 324-333). 

(4) for the Pauline authorship—Reiche, authent. posterioris ad Thess. 
epistole (1829; against Schmidt); Schneckenburger (Jahrb. fiir deutsche 
Theol., 1859, 405-467); Renan (iii. 248-255) ; Westrik, de echthetd van 77 
Thess. (1879); Klopper in part 8 (pp. 73-140) of Zheol. Stud. τ. Shkizzen 
aus Ostpreussen (1889) ἢ; Titius, der Paulinismus (1900), 49f.; G. G. 


5 


66 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Finlay (1.2.5, Oct. 1900, 251-261); G. W. Garrod (London, 1900) 
Kolmodin, Pauli andra tess.-bref (Stockholm, 1901); Moffatt, WAWV7. 
142-149; Briining, der Lchthett d. 2 Thess. Briefes (1903); E. Vischer, 
Paulus-briefe (1904) 70f. ; Wernle (GGA., 1905, 347 f., review of Wrede) ; 
Jiilicher (Z772/. § 5); R. J. Knowling, Zhe Testimony of St. Paul to Christ 
(1905), 24f.; Jacquier (V7. i. 94 f.); Barth (Zzz/. § 6); A. 5. Peake, 
(4N7., 1909, 12f.); Griiner, ‘Besteht zwischen d. 2 und 1 Briefe an die 
Gemeinde von Thess. eine literar. Abhangigkeit δ᾽ (Weidenauer Studien, ii. 
419f., against Wrede). 


§ 1. Contents and character of 4 Thess.—The Christians of 
Thessalonika were mainly Greeks by birth and training (19 214), - 
who had been won over from paganism by the efforts of Paul, 
Silvanus, and Timotheus. The mission had only lasted for a 
month or two. After preaching for three weeks in the local 
synagogue, the evangelists continued their work till they were 
prematurely driven from the city by the intrigues of the local 
Jews. They left a vigorous church behind them, however, and 
the central position of Thessalonika upon the Via Egnatia at the 
head of the Thermaic gulf presented excellent opportunities for 
the diffusion of the new faith (178 419).* 


The narrative of Acts 17}, though admitting that the large majority of 
the converts were proselytes (17*),+ ignores any work outside the synagogue, 
and restricts the term of the mission apparently to three weeks. This 
account is inadequate. As Baronius once said, epzstolarés historia est optima 
historia. The membership and influence of the church, its reputation 
throughout Macedonia and even Achaia, to say nothing of Paul’s allusions 
to a period of training (1 Th 25), imply the lapse of a considerable interval 
between the apostle’s arrival and departure. Besides, his stay must have 
been prolonged, if he had occasion not only to support himself (1 Th 2581} 
17-20 35-10) by his trade, but to receive gifts of money (Ph 415) from his 
friends at Philippi, a hundred miles away. It was the last-named fact which, 
among other things, gave rise to the imputation of mercenary motives (2° 3). 
The primary charge against Paul and his friends before the local authorities 
had been treason and sedition (Ac 1758 βασιλέα ἕτερον) ; in his enforced 
absence through the success of this manceuvre, charges against his personal 
character were circulated. Naturally he refers to the former subject quite 
incidentally (1 Th 2" God’s own kingdom) ; the latter dominates his mind. 


* These passages cover not only Philippi and Berea (Lightfoot, Bzd/ical 
Essays, pp. 237 f.), but a somewhat extensive work by Paul, as well as by 
the Thessalonians, which may have reached as far west as IIlyrikum 
(Ro 1519). 

+ This, together with the religious training of the synagogue, helps te 
explain—what is otherwise rather remarkable—the unusually rapid growth of 
the local church | Wynne, 2: χ.Ἷ iv. 364-377). 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 67 


His primary reason for writing to the Christians of Thessa- 
fonika was anxiety on their behalf. It was the first community 
of any importance which he had been able to found in Europe ; 
and the exemplary character, the exceptional opportunities, and 
the influence of its members had already produced a wide im- 
pression on the surrounding district. To this Paul alludes 
(178) with a pardonable touch of hyperbole * (cp. Ro 18, Ph 
118), From no church was he torn with such evident reluct- 
ance. But the urgent claim of the church on his solicitude 
was the suffering to which it had been exposed even during his 
stay, and especially since he had left. Concerned for his friends’ 
stability, and unable to return in person, ἡ he had dispatched 
Timotheus, as the younger of his companions, from Athens in 
order to rally and confirm their faith. Meanwhile events had 
driven him from Athens across to Corinth (17%), where 
Timotheus brought him the glad tidings (a real gospel—note 
the rare use of εὐαγγελισάμενου in 3°) of the Thessalonians’ 
affection and constancy. He at once proceeds to send this 
informal letter, written (i.) out of warm personal affection, which 
he rejoices to find returned, and (ii.) in order to convey instruc- 
tions upon some points of Christian belief and conduct. 


For an ingenious attempt to prove that 1 Thess. answers a letter brought 
by Timotheus from the Thessalonians themselves, see Rendel Harris in 
Exp. viii. 161 f., 401 f., and Bacon’s JT. 73 f. (Story of St. Paul, 235 f.). 
The hypothesis is tenable, but the evidence is elusive : καί in 218 and 3° cannot 
be pressed into a proof of this, nor can οἴδατε (=‘ you have admitted in your 
letter’); and ἀπαγγέλλετε, though attractive, is not a necessary reading 
in 1°, 

*The rhetorical phrase ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ is not to be pressed (as by Zahn, 
Einl, i. 146 f.) into a proof that the news of the Thessalonian mission had 
time to reach the Asiatic Christians, whose congratulations came back ‘so 
Paul before he wrote. , 

+ Why? Because, in Oriental phrase, Satan hindered us (2)*)—an enig. 
matic remark which probably means either sickness (2 Co 127) or pressure 
of local circumstances at Corinth. To refer it to a guarantee exacted by 
the Imperial authorities from Jason and his associates that peace would 
be kept, and Paul kept away (Ramsay, SPZ7. 228 f.; Woodhouse, 
EBi. 5047; and Finlay), conflicts with the idea of the Empire in 
2 Th 25“. Besides, the Thess. would have easily known in that case why 
Paul could not come back. That Paul had any intention of returning 
to Thessalonika by sea, after he was driven out of Berea, is a precarious 
inference from 2.8, though the idea occurred at an early stage of the 
Christian tradition, as is plain from the insertion of the Dezan editor in 


68 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


The former (i.) consideration emerges in a series of allusions 
to malignant suspicions of his conduct, especially of the purity 
of his motives and methods, circulated by 1ocal outsiders (25% 18 
etc.). This does not mean that he had reproached himself with 
having appeared to leave his friends in the lurch; such cannot 
be the entire explanation (so Spitta, pp. 115-116) of the phrases. 
A self-defence of this kind would be sadly post factum. The 
language undoubtedly implies that insinuations to his dis- 
credit were current in Thessalonika; they struck at the church 
through the apostle; and because the peace and faith of the 
Thessalonian Christians were so intimately bound up with con- 
fidence in his integrity, he vindicates their trust by showing how, 
in an age in which impostors, religious, medical, and philo- 
sophical, flourished by crooked methods, he had not worked for 
mercenary ends, nor set up high pretensions, nor made exacting 
demands on his followers, nor left them meanly in the lurch. He 
appeals to his record in Thessalonika, and shows that his absence 
was neither voluntary nor equivalent to a slackening of his 
interest or affection. Such malicious calumnies, circulated 
mainly or at least primarily by the Jews,* Paul further meets 
by unbaring his very heart. He reveals his throbbing interest 
in the church (28 3% 1), tells them of the joy and pride their 
loyalty afforded him (see the praise of other Macedonians in 
Ph 41), and expands previous oral admonitions (212 41:5 6 10-12) 
in a series of written counsels. 

(ii.) The second and supplementary part of the letter, pass- 
ing from this personal and apologetic aspect, warns them against 
such perils as (περὶ ἁγιασμοῦ, 438) sensuality, (περὶ φιλαδελφίας, 
Ac 17 (παρῆλθεν δὲ τὴν Θεσσαλίαν" ἐκώλυθη yap els αὐτοὺς κηρύξαι τὸ; 
λόγον), which, like the equally inferior reading in 174 (σεβ. καὶ “Ελλ.), is due 
to the harmonising tendencies of the second century. 

*So Hilgenfeld (Zzx/. 241), Lipsius, Sabatier (pp. 107, 110), Schmidt 
(25 f., 96), Renan, G. G. Finlay, Weiss, etc. In the nature of things, 
as already (e.g. Ac 14” etc.), Paul’s principal detractors would be Jews, 
angry at this renegade’s success; besides, the transition from 2518 to 218-16 
and back to 2!” rather points to Semitic agitation. Others (e.g. Hofmann, 
von Soden, SX., 1885, pp. 302, 306f., Schmiedel, and Zahn) think of 
pagans (cp. Clemen, VXZ., 1896, 151 f.). In any case the references are 
too keen and detailed to be merely prophylactic. Probably the charges were 
started by Jews and caught up by pagans; they were not dirscted (as in 
Galatia) against his apostolic authority, but more subtly against his personal 
character. Passages like 2% 8 4" (cp, 2 Th 25. 38%) do not justify the 
theory (Lipsius) that a Judaistic party was at work within the church. 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 69 


4%-) selfishness, and noisy indolence, due as much to a misap- 
prehension of their faith as to pagan surroundings. The occur- 
rence of some deaths had raised uncertainties about the Lord’s 
Second coming, and Paul briefly handles this with reference to 
(a) the dead (41818 περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων), who are declared not 
to have forfeited their place in the messianic realm of the age to 
come ; and (6) to the living (5)! περὶ τῶν χρόνων καὶ τῶν καιρῶν), 
who are exhorted to moral alertness in view of this great event, 
which may be expected at any moment (5°), as well as to an 
ethical steadiness * unaffected by unsettling expectations of the 
end. This need of mutual exhortation (5!) naturally leads to 
a word on subordination and obedience to the local church 
authorities (5153), and with some general counsels the letter 
ends. While it would be actually put into the hands of the 
local leaders (512), it was addressed, and was to be read, to all 
the members of the church, not to any exclusive section of them 
(5217). Apparently it did its work, so far as Paul’s character 
was concerned. 

The perils indicated in this writing belong to an inexperienced and un- 
consolidated Christianity ; they have no connection with any Judaising propa- 
ganda on the part of Paul’s opponents, as was the case in Corinth. The 
saving quality of the Thessalonians’ religion was its generous and widespread 
(13 38+ 12 5% 18, 15) charity (traces of this later in 2 Co 7-9), combined with an 
enthusiasm which survived depressing trials and isolation alike. Their faith 
required completion rather than correction (319). They were on the right 
path ; what they chiefly needed was stimulus and direction (312 41" 10), Conse- 
quently there was no occasion for Paul to introduce what are elsewhere 
enunciated as cardinal principles of his theology. For the same reason the 
letter is not marked by passion and agitation. There is an outpouring of 
relief, but no fierce outburst of indignation or alarm or wounded dignity ; 
what reproof Paul has to give is delicately conveyed, as usual, in the wake of 
praise. 


§ 2. Authenticity of 1 Thess.—As the letter is included not 
only in the Muratorian Canon but in Marcion’s strictly Pauline 
collection (Tert. adv. Marc. v.15; Epiph. Zaer. xlii. 9 ; cp. Zahn’s 
GK. ii. 520 f.), it was known and circulated by the first quarter 
of the second century. Definite quotations, however, chiefly of 

* After his own example (2%). ‘‘La modéle qu il concevait était un 
artisan rangé, paisible, appliqué ἃ son travail” (Renan, iii. 246). 

+ As some previous letter had been? cp. 3 Jn % To delete 577 as a 
marginal gloss, added by some second-century reader when the apostolic 


letters were coming into prominent use (Hitzig, Schmiedel, J. Weiss: SK., 
1892, 261 f.), is gratuitous, in view of this natural explanation, 


70 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the eschatological passages, emerge for the first time in Irenzeus 
(adv. her. v. 6. 1=5%, v. 30. 2=5%) and Tertullian (de resurr. 
carnis, xxiv.=5! and 19:10), while both Clement of Alexandria 
and Origen employ the epistle (for Dionysius of Corinth, see 
Eus. H. £. iv. 23). The so-called allusions in the apostolic 
fathers are scanty and vague, for the most part; but it is probable 
that there is a reminiscence of 518 in Hermas (Vzs. iii. 9. το. 
cipnvevere ἐν αὑτοῖς), and—if the reading were certain—of 517 in 
Ignat. Eph. x. 1 (ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε), of τὸ in Lph. x. 3 
(μιμηταὶ δὲ τοῦ Κυρίου σπουδάζωμεν εἶναι, different context), and 
24 in Rom. ii. 1 (οὐ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀνθρωπαρεσκῆσαι, ἀλλὰ Wed); cp., 
too, 49= Barn. 218 γίνεσθε δὲ θεοδίδακτοι (different context). The 
general similarity of outline between 41:16 and Did. xvi. 6 (revela- 
tion of the Lord, trumpet, resurrection) is too vague to denote 
any literary filiation. 

These traces are not early enough to preclude the possibility 
that the epistle is pseudonymous, and a post-Pauline origin has 
occasionally been claimed for it on various grounds. (i.) The 
resemblances between it and the Corinthian epistles (Baur) are 
no argument against its originality ; whatever 1 Thess. may be, 
it is a decided error of literary criticism to pronounce it a mere 
copy and echo of 1 and 2 Corinthians. (ii.) The discrepancies 
between its account of the Thessalonian mission and that of 
Acts are not serious enough to invalidate the epistle (Schrader, 
Baur, etc. ; see p. 66). A few months were enough to raise the 
problem of Christians dying before the παρουσίας The favour- 
able soil for the gospel at Thessalonika, partly among proselytes, 
must have led to a rapid development of the church, and Paul 
was too careful a missioner to leave his converts without a rudi- 
mentary but effective local organisation. Unless, therefore, Acts 
is taken as a rigid standard, 1 Thess. can be naturally set in 
the situation presupposed by the former, although a comparison 
of Ac 17!5 and τ Th 1-2 shows that the former narrative 
requires to be supplemented and corrected by the details of 
Paul. Luke was not a member of the party at Thessalonika, 
and in any case it was not his purpose to describe the inner 
development of the Pauline churches. As a rule, he is content 
to narrate how Paul and his companions got a foothold in any 
city, and how they had to leave it. From Luke we fail te under- 
stand that the local church was recruited mainly from the pagan 
population, that the mission lasted for some time, and that the 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 71 


evangelists kept in touch with the local church after their 
enforced departure. But all this tells strongly in favour of the 
epistle, whose incidental allusions are not only coherent but 
natural. It is capricious to pronounce the epistle a colourless 
imitation, if it agrees with Acts, and unauthentic if it disagrees. 
“Die Art wie Paulus in 1 Thess. die unmittelbar vorherge- 
gangenen Begebenheiten in Philippi und die Riickkehr des 
Timotheus (vgl. 1 Th 4216 und Ac 1714 185) erwahnt, beweist 
theils, dass dies nicht kunstlich aus der Apgeschichte gemacht 
ist, weil dort eine Aussendung des Timotheus nach Thessalonika 
nicht erwadhnt ist, theils dass der Brief nicht lange nachdem 
Timotheus wieder zu Paulus gestossen ist, kann geschrieben sein, 
weil die kleinen Umstande sonst nicht vorkommen wiirden. 
Diese Uebereinstimmung ist nun von der Art, dass sie die 
Aechtheit der Briefes beweist, so dass wir nach innern Merkmalen 
weiter nicht zu fragen haben ” (Schleiermacher, Zzz/. 150). (111.) 
The vocabulary of 1 Thess. presents no features which can fairly 
be described as necessarily unPauline, except when an arbitrary 
standard of Pauline thought and style is constructed from Gal., 
Cor., and Romans. A few words occur, as in any letter of Paul, 
which do not happen to be used elsewhere by him (e.g. θεὸς 
ἀληθινός 19, ἀναμένειν 1), 6 πειράζων 3°, σαίνεσθαι 33, ἄγειν in 
sense of 413, ἀνιστάναι 4116 of the resurrection of Jesus and 
men, λόγος κυρίου 415, ἁρπάζειν 417, νεφέλαι and ἁπάντησις 417, 
λόγοι οἵ apostolic injunctions 418, ἀκριβῶς 52, ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ (cp. 
Eph 3”) 515 and 310, ἡγεῖσθαι ἐν 518; but the general language 
of the letter is thoroughly Pauline, and the style bears no trace 
of a later hand. When set side by side with the rest of the 
Pauline letters, 1 Thess. invites the judgment passed by von 
Soden on t Th 5% as compared with Ro 13%: “the 
similarities of the passages show their kinship; the differences 
exclude any question of imitation.” It is almost superfluous to 
add that the letter was dictated in Greek. The idea (cp. 
Bertholdt’s Hind. 3488 f.) that it represents a translation by 
Silvanus and Timotheus from the original Aramaic is a sheer 
jeu @esprit, (iv.) It is more difficult to explain the lack of any 
allusion, even where such might be expected, to the characteristic 
Pauline ideas of the law, forgiveness in relation to the death of 
Christ, and the union of the Christian with Christ and the Spirit. 
One line of explanation may be set aside decisively. Paul had 
been a Christian, and a Christian preacher, for nearly twenty 


72 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


years when he wrote this letter, and the ordinary catechetical 
instruction, such as he was now giving at Corinth (1 Co 1% 23 
158), certainly included a much fuller account of the death of 
Jesus in relation to forgiveness than happens to be mentioned 
in 1 Thessalonians. Behind him lay the struggle with Jewish 
Christian traditionalism at Antioch and Jerusalem,* which had 
already compelled him to define his principles and think out 
the deeper aspects of his gospel. It is therefore historically and 
psychologically impossible to read the Thessalonian epistles as 
if they represented a primitive stage in the apostle’s thought, 
when he had not yet developed dogmatic Paulinism. If his 
gospel centres here round the Coming + rather than the Cross of 
Jesus Christ, and if he seems to argue that men were to be 
sanctified by hope rather than justified by faith, the explanation 
must be sought in the special circumstances which determined 
the composition of the letter. There was apparently nothing to 
call out any discussion of the Law or any theorising on forgive- 
ness (cp. Feine’s Gesetzesfreie Euglm d. Paulus, 169-181). The 
clue to the comparative absence of technical terms and theories 
is probably to be found in Paul’s desire to educate the Thessa- 
lonian Christians in the rudiments of their faith. He fed them, 
as he was feeding the Corinthians, with elementary principles 
(1 Co 3? γάλα ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα)η. Paruulos nutrix fouet: proficientes 
uero pater instituit (Pelagius). And Paul was both nurse and 
father to them, as he himself affectionately reminded them 
(27: 11), In any case, a later Paulinist writing in his master’s 
name would probably have introduced some reference to the 
distinctive dogmas of Paulinism. Their absence from 1 Thess. 
is a difficulty, but it is not a proof of unPauline origin. “Das 
dogmatische System des Apostels wird in diesem Briefe selbstver- 
standlicherweise nicht entfaltet, sondern nur gestreift, dies aber 
in durchaus original-paulinischer Art und Weise” (P. Schmidt, 
op. cit. p. 78). (v.) Another real difficulty may be removed by 
recourse to the hypothesis of an interpolation. ‘ When it is 

* Unless, of course, Acts is held to have ante-dated (so Spitta and 
Weizsicker) the Jerusalem Council, which ought to be subsequent to Paul’s 
dispute with Peter at Antioch. In this way (cp. Ménégoz, fe Péché, 4) 
room might be found for the Thess. epistles as an expression of unformu- 
lated, primitive Paulinism; but even so, we should have to imagine that 
Paul’s mind did not begin to work upon his religion till the exigencies of 


controversy forced him to construct a theology. 
+ Every paragraph runs out into the future (19 21% 16 19-20 418 456. ς10. a), 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 73 


said that after the Jews have continually filled up the measure 
of their sins, ἔφθασε δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος, what does this 
suggest to us more naturally than the punishment that came 
upon them in the destruction of Jerusalem?” (Baur, Pauw. ii, 
88). The words (2160) are a reminiscence of Test. Levi vi. 11. 
It is unnecessary to suspect 214-16 as a later interpolation (cp. 
HNT. pp. 625-626), but 2!6 must be admitted to have all 
the appearance of a marginal gloss, written after the tragedy of 
A.D. 70 (sO, ¢.g., Spitta, Pfleiderer, Schmiedel, Teichmann: dye 
paul. Vorstellungen von Auferstehung u. Gericht, 83; Drummond, 
etc.). The recent massacres, revolutions, and famines in Pales- 
tine, to say nothing of the edict of Claudius, de pellendis Judais 
(P. Schmidt, 86 f.), might be considered to afford a suitable back- 
ground for the verse, but the definite sense assigned to ὀργή, which 
is more than mere judicial hardening (cp. Dante’s Paradiso, vi. 
88-93), tells in favour of the reference to the horrors of a.p. 
70. Instead of relegating the entire epistle to this period, it is 
better to regard the words as a Christian reader’s gloss upon 216, 
(vi.) The attempt of Steck (JPTZ., 1883, 509-524) to prove 
that 415% is a quotation from 4 Es 512 is hopelessly forced 
(cp. Schmidt, 107-110; Bornemann, 310f.). Paul’s reference is, 
probably, not to some ἄγραφον, but to a prophetic revelation 
vouchsafed to himself or possibly to Silvanus (cp. Ac 1582) in a 
vision (see 2.67. iv. 37). Even if the passage were a quotation, 
it would be from oral tradition or from some early collection of 
evangelic logia. The point of the saying is opposed to that of 
4 Esdras, and the parallel, such as it is, is too far-fetched to denote 
the post-Pauline origin of the epistle. 

The ἡμεῖς κτλ. of 415 (cp. 1 Co 15°) must not be evaporated into a 
general and hypothetical sense, as, ¢.g., by those who hesitate to attribute 
a miscalculation to Paul, or by those who at the opposite extreme (like 
Steck, P//., 1905, 449-453) deny that such expressions form any barrier 


to the theory that the epistles of Paul were composed as late as the 
second century. 


§ 3. Place and period of composition.—The letter was written 
from Corinth (Ac 1811), as the reference to Achaia (178) is enough 
to prove.* The words ἐν ᾿Αθήναις (31) do not necessarily mean 
that Paul was not there when he wrote (cp. 1 Co 1583 168), but 
they are insufficient to prove that Athens was the place of the 
letter’s composition,—a theory advocated from Theodoret and 

* Bottger (Bettrage, 1837, 28) thinks of some town in Achaia, 


74 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Pelagius (cp. the subscription of ΑΒ ΚΙ], πρὸς Θεσσαλονικει. 
πρώτη ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿Αθηνῶν) to Schrader (Afpostel Paulus, pp. go f.), 
the latter placing it during the period of Ac 20%, mainly on the 
ground that πρεσβύτεροι (cp. τ Ti 3°) could not exist in a church 
of neophytes which had only been founded for a few months, 
and that deaths (413.18) could not have already occurred. J. F. 
Kohler (Adfassungszeit der epistolischen Schriften im NT, 1830, 
p. 112) dated it even later (after a.p. 66), on the ground that 
214-16 implied the death of James, the Lord’s brother, and the 
outbreak of the Jewish rebellion. 


The narrative of Acts requires further correction at this point. Accord- 
ing to Luke (Ac 18°), Silas and Timotheus, who had remained at Berea with 
orders to rejoin Paul as soon as possible, did not reach him till he had 
arrived at Corinth. Since Timotheus had meanwhile visited Thessalonika 
(1 Th 2!7-3%), we must assume (a) either that he hurried to Athens himself, 
was sent back by Paul to Thessalonika, and on his return picked up Silas at 
Berea, or (4) that both men joined Paul at Athens and were dispatched on 
different missions, Silas perhaps to Philippi, and Timotheus certainly to 
Thessalonika. Otherwise Paul left Silas behind at Athens (cp. Ac 18°), if the 
plural in 1 Th 3} is not the 2 εσαϊίς auctorés. In any case the natural sense of 
1 Th 3)? is that Paul sent Timotheus from Athens, not (so, é.g., von Soden) 
that he merely sent directions from Athens that his colleague should leave 
Berea and betake himself to Thessalonika (#82. 5076-5077). 


§ 4. Contents and setting of 2 Thess.—After congratulating 
the Thessalonian Christians on their brotherly love and faith and 
patience (114), Paul addresses himself to the situation which had 
specially called into exercise the last-named virtue. (a) The trials 
and troubles under which they are now suffering (11%) are simply 
a prelude to the relief and vindication which will be theirs at 
the coming of Jesus. (4) As the anticipation of this, however, 
had already produced a morbid fanatical excitement in certain 
quarters, owing to the fact of some people, apparently from a 
misunderstanding of his instructions, having failed to recollect 
that the παρουσία, while near, could not happen till after the 
appearance and overthrow of a hostile power, Paul proceeds 
(21:12) to reiterate his oral teaching on this point. He then 
concludes (2!5-!7) with an expression of confidence in them, an 
appeal for loyalty to his teaching, and a brief prayer for their 
constancy and comfort. Asking their prayers, in turn, for himself, 
he renews his expression of confidence and interest (3!5), where- 
upon, after a word on the maintenance of discipline and industry, 
the epistle closes (40:18), 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 75 


Assuming both letters to have come from Paul,* we need not hesitate to 
place 1 Thessalonians prior to 2 Thessalonians, in opposition to the reverse 
hypothesis of Grotius (based mainly on an antiquated chronology), Bunsen, 
Renan (iii. 235 f.), Ewald (Sesdschrezben, pp. 15f.), and Laurent (.S., 1864, 
pp- 497f. ; WZ Studien, pp. 49f.). There isno reason why such a criterion of 
genuineness as 2 Th 3!” should have appeared in the earliest of Paul’s letters ; 
in view of 2? its appearance, after the composition of 1 Thess. and even other 
letters, is psychologically accurate. It is unnatural to find a reference to 
2 Th 3° "6 in 1 Th 4; besides, as Bornemann points out (p. 495), 
if 2 Thess. is held to betray all the tone of a first letter (Ewald), what about 
2 Th 2)? The comparative absence of allusions in 2 Thess. to 1 Thess. 
(cp., however, 2 Th 21} = 1 Th 417 etc.) is explained by the fact that in the 
second epistle Paul goes back to elaborate part of his original oral teaching 
in view of fresh needs which had ‘appeared since he wrote I Thess. Finally, 
while 1 Th 2!7~3° does not exclude the possibility of a previous letter, it 
cannot be made to presuppose one of the character of 2 Thess., least of all 
when written from Berea (Ac 17’°, Laurent and Ewald). 


Paul is still with Silvanus and Timotheus (11) at Corinth 
(3? = Ac 18, 1 Th 215); he is writing presumably not long ὦ 
after the dispatch of the former epistle (215), having heard (3!) t 
of the mischief caused by local misunderstandings of what he 
had taught on the course of the Last Things. To repudiate 
misconceptions and thereby to calm the mind of the church 
amid its anabaptist perils, is the apostle’s aim. What he has to 
communicate by way of instruction is practically a re-statement, 
firmer and more detailed, of teaching already orally imparted (25-15), 
not a discussion of novel doubts and difficulties. If any change 


* On the hypothesis that both are sub-Pauline, Baur and van der Vies 
(op. c#t. pp. 128-164) argue for the priority of 2 Thessalonians, the latter 
separating the two by the fall of Jerusalem. The arguments against them are 
stated by van Manen (Omderzoek, 11-25), and the evidence in favour of the 
canonical order is best arrayed by Hofmann (pp. 365 f.), Liinemann (160 f.), 
Bornemann (pp. 492f.), and Johannes (124f.), in their respective editions. 
The problem is not so gratuitous as it may appear. A similar difficulty vexes 
critics of the Olynthiac orations; some (e.g. Whiston, Flathe, Grote, and 
Thirlwall) hold, on internal evidence, that Demosthenes must have delivered 
the second speech first, and the question has excited keen debate, especially 
since Petrenz’s defence of the edited order. 

+ The éerminus ad quem is his next visit to Thessalonika (Ac 20!-?). Corinth 
is the only place that we know of, where the three men were together at this 
period. 

+ The channel of information is not specified, but possibly Paul had been 
appealed to by the leading men to lend his authority against the spurious 
‘spiritual’ developments at Thessalonika (31). The situation demanded 
explicit written counsels; evidently no visit of Silvanus or Timotheus would 
have sufficed, even had they been able to leave Corinth, 


76 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in the situation has taken place, it has been to shift the centre of 
gravity from fears about the dead to extravagant hopes cherished 
by the living, and to aggravate the restlessness of some pietistic 
members. Hence, for one thing, the general similarity of 
structure and atmosphere in both epistles, and, on the other 
hand, the sharper emphasis in the second upon Paul’s authority. 

Both of these features, together with the singular eschatology 
and the style, have roused suspicion as marks of a sub-Pauline 
period. 


§ 5. Authorship and aim of 2 Thess.—Is the literary relation 
between 1 Thess. and 2 Thess. more intelligible if they are 
taken as written successively by Paul, or if the second is com- 
posed by a later Paulinist working on the basis of the first? 
The latter theory draws its strength from the remarkably close 
and continuous similarities between the two epistles in style and 
content and arrangement (apart from 2112, the fresh material of 
2 Thess. occurs mainly in 15-12 215 3218-1417), ‘These simi- 
larities can hardly be explained by the mere fact that Paul 
was once more (in 2 Thess.) writing to the same people ; for 
while any writer’s correspondence shows an almost unconscious 
reproduction of the same ideas and terms in letters written, even 
to different people, during a given period when his mind was full 
of similar conceptions, the literary phenomena in the present case 
are rather too numerous and detailed to permit of any explana- 
tion save one which presupposes either (cp. Zahn’s ZVT7. § τό, 
note 6) that Paul read over a copy (see above, p. 51) of 1 Thess. 
before writing 2 Thess., or that the author of the latter had the 
former before him. 

The latter theory, which regards the Epistle as a pseudonym- 
ous writing composed by some Paulinist, on the basis chiefly of 
1 Thess. and the Corinthian* Epistles, in order to win Pauline 
sanction for its eschatological conceptions, has been worked out 
along two lines ¢ in the main, one (i.) dating it in the latter part of 


* A little salt of common sense would evaporate some of the arguments 
used by van Manen and Volter, who find even 1 Th 318 suspicious because it 
resembles 2 Co 77, This implies that similar circumstances must not recur 
in a man’s lifetime, and that, if he wishes to describe the mission of one 
friend to a church, he must eschew language, however natural, which he had 
employed on a previous occasion. 1 Th 15 and 2 Th 1** are, of course, mere 
imitations of 1 Co 137! 

+ An interme/liate datr, in various forms, was advocated by Kern (who 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 77 


the seventh decade (e.g. Baur and Schmiedel), the other (ii.) going 
further down towards the end of the first (Wrede, von Soden) or 
the beginning of the second century (Hilgenfeld, 2 2,11, 642 f.; 
Hase, Kirchengeschichte, p. 69; Bahnsen, Pfleiderer, Rauch, 
Holtzmann, Hollmann, Brickner: Chron. 253-256; N. Schmidt, 
Prophet of Nazareth, p. 196=¢. 110 A.D.) during Trajan’s reign. 
The latter group of theories, in so far as it traces an anti-Gnostic 
polemic in the epistle (self-deification being a Gnostic trait, cp. 
Jude 8:10. 2 P 210-12; Justin’s Afol. 1. 26, etc.), has been under- 
mined by modern investigations into the cycle of eschatological 
traditions upon antichrist, which put it beyond doubt that the 
language of 2512 need not, and indeed cannot, be taken in a 
symbolic sense as the delineation of doctrinal errors. The 
references to internal apostasy in Mt 24! (Pfleiderer) * are by 
no means so realistic or detailed as here, and no hypothesis of 
this kind has yet succeeded in giving a coherent account of the 
restraining force. The allusion to the temple (24) is a particular 
difficulty in the way of all theories which date the writing after 
A.D. 70; upon the other hand, as Wrede candidly allows, the 
case for a date ¢. 70 A.D. (as put, eg., by Schmiedel) is largely 
hypothetical, not only on account of the impossible Neronic 
interpretation which it involves, but because it is extremely 
difficult to understand how a pseudorymous letter could get 
into circulation at so early a period, unless it were addressed 
to the church at large. 2 Thess. is addressed to a specific 
church, and though this may be held to have been merely 
a piece of drapery, the hypothesis lacks any basis in reality. 


The nearest analogy to the apocalyptic speculations of 23-2 lies in the later 
Apocalypse of John. Both writings reflect the traditional conceptions of self- 
deification and blasphemy (2 Th 2“ = Apoc 1335" etc.) ; both, as was natural, 
view the sufferings of the saints under the category of a future retribution 
(2 Th 1% = Apoc 6 etc.) ; both distinguish the antichrist-figure from Satan, 
though Paul, unlike the later prophet, says nothing of the doom of Satan, 
confining himself to the fate of the devil’s agents and victims (2 Th 2®*, cp, 
Apoc 20") ; both anticipate a climax of evil ere the end, though 2 Thess. lacks 
any reference to the Nero redivivus myth. But this neither involves a con- 


took the restrainer to be Vespasian or Titus, the antichrist to be Nero redivivus, 
and the author to bea Paulinist of the eighth decade) and Havet (Orzgines, iv. 
373), who regarded Vespasian as ὁ κατέχων (27), and Domitian as the ἄνομος. 

* These do not justify any theory of literary dependence on the part of 
2 Thess. (R. Scott; cp. H. A, A. Kennedy, S¢. Pasul’s Conceptions of the Last 
Things, 55f., 96f.). 


78 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


temporary origin, nor the dependence of the one writing upon the other. Ta 
Paul the empire is the restraining power, which for a while is able to hold in 
check the antichrist or pseudo-messiah. His view of it is religious. To John 
the empire itself, with its worship of the emperor, is the antichristian force in 
politics. The latter outlook lay far beyond the horizon of Paul, and the 
similarities of conception which underlie this difference run back to the 
common eschatological tradition which had been flowing since Daniel. 
Since the outbreak of Antiochus Ey iphanes, self-deification and the seduction 
of men had been notes of the final enemy; any vivid expectation of the end, 
such as that cherished by ardent Jewish Christians like Paul, instinctively 
seized on these traits in order to depict the false messiah ; it required no 
historical figure like Nero, or even Caligula, to suggest them (cp. £G7. iv. 
14f., and M. Dibelius, de Gezsterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, 1909, 
57-61).* Paul, in 2 Th 25“, is simply operating with a familiar Beliar- 
saga, which is too realistic to be a second-century description of Gnosticism, 
and too early to require a date in the seventh decade of the first century. 


In both epistles, but especially in the second, we can see the 
torch of apocalyptic enthusiasm, streaming out with smoke as 
well as with red flame, which Paul and many Jewish Christians 
in the early church employed in order to light up their path 
through the dark providences of the age. Paul is prophesying 
—none the less vividly and effectively that he does so ἐκ 
μέρους. The chief element of novelty which he introduces in 
2 Thess. from Jewish tradition (cp. Dn 1156) into the primitive 
Christian eschatology, is the conception of a supernatural 
antagonist, a final pseudo-messiah or antichrist, who shall 
embody all that is profane and blasphemous, and who shall 
be welcomed, instead of repudiated, by Jews as well as pagans. 

When the Pauline authorship is doubted, upon other grounds, 
the eschatological stratum of 2 Thess. is differently viewed. 
According, e.g., to Wrede,t the ablest representative of this view, 
2 Thess. was written by one who desired to counteract the 
eschatological views encouraged throughout the church by Paul’s 
epistles, and who took 1 Thess. for his starting-point, since that 


* So R. H. Charles (Ascension of /satah, pp. \xiif.: ‘in no case could 2 Th 
2.12 have been written after A.D. 70. This section, whether of Pauline 
authorship or not, is in its main features a Christian transformation of a 
current Judaistic myth’). 

+ Two of the weak points in Wrede’s clever reconstruction are (a) the 
unsatisfactory reason given why such a writer should have fixed on 1 Thess, and 
if so, why he should have elaborated his arguments into the peculiar shape 
of 2 Thess. ; (6) why he made his eschatological correction in such ambiguous 
terms. The very obscurity of 2 Th 2'-” tells in favour of, rather than against, 
the Pauline authorship (cp. Mackintosh in £xf." ii. 427-433). 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 79 


letter contained the most notable outline of this eschatology. 
The sole foothold for such theories is the acceptance of 1 Thess. 
as genuine, in which case 2 Thess. would be an attempt .tc 
conserve the substance of the earlier epistle, bringing it up to 
date with warnings against contemporary fanaticism and pietistic 
enthusiasm, and restating the Pauline eschatology, for the 
benefit of a later generation, in terms of a wider historical 
prospect. For this general view of the document an excellent 
case may be stated, when the features of style and spirit, the 
special eschatological motives, the absence of special traits in 
the situation of the Thessalonians, and even allusions like 2? 
and 31", are put together. The argument, however, is at best 
cumulative, and, for all the difficulties of the epistle, it is fair to 
say that almost every one of the features which seem to portray 
another physiognomy from that of Paul can be explained, 
without straining the evidence, upon the hypothesis that he 
wrote the epistle himself (so most recent editors). It is upon 
the resemblances to, and the discrepancies with, 1 Thess. that 
inost recent critics of the Pauline authorship (Weizsacker, Holtz- 
mann, Hollmann, Wrede) are content to rest their case, arguing 
that 2 Thess. is connected with 1 Thess. as Ephesians with 
Colossians. The following are the main points in debate :— 


(2) Of the ten ἅπαξ εὑρημένα, one or two, e.g. (1%) dlxy=punishment 
(Sap 18" etc., cp. Judas”), ἐγκαυχάομαι (14, Pss), τίνω (1%,.cp. Pr 2712), 
ἀποστασία (25), σέβασμα (2%, Sap 14), may be fairly ascribed to the pre- 
dominant influence of the LXX upon the writer’s mind ; others, like κρίσις 
(15) and θροοῦμαι (27), though absent from the other genuine epistles of Paul, 
are too common in the primitive Christian vocabulary to admit of much 
importance being attached to their solitary appearance here. The appear- 
ance of ἐπιφάνεια, which only recurs i» the Pauline pastorals (see on this 
term E. Abbot in /AZ., 1881, 16-18, Milligan’s ed. 148 f.), is surprising, and 
the absence of ἄν, together with the use of αἰώνιος as an adj. of three termina- 
tions, is almost suspicious. Still, as Nageli( Wortschdtz des Apostels Paulus, 
1905, 80) concludes, ‘‘ im ganzen ergeben die lexikographischen Verhialtnisse 
dieses Briefes weder fiir die Bejahung noch fiir die Verneinung der 
Echtheitsfrage etwas Wesentliches.” (ὁ) But if the vocabulary by itself 
would not be sufficient to excite comment, the style of the letter is remarkable. 
In addition to a certain formality or official tinge, there is a curious poverty 
of expression and even a lack of point. In the treatment of a subject like 
this, it was inevitable that one or two phrases and terms should recur 
fairly often, e.g. the OAtyus-group (τ΄ Ὁ), the mlores-group (1% 10-11 211-18 32-8) | 
ἐργάζεσθαι and allied terms (111 2!7 35: 10-12) παραγγέλλω (3% & 10. 12), and 
εἰρήνη (18 316. Still, it may be confessed that elsewhere, e.g. in the de- 
scription of God and Christ (11? 2!° 1), the giving of thanks (15 238), 


80 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and the repetition of παράκλησις, etc. (21-17 312), there is a stereotyped 
adherence to certain forms of expression or terms which admittedly is 
unusual in Paul. In parts the style resembles nothing to be met ehewhere 
in the letters of Paul. This is particularly the case in passages like 1°), 
where, it must be allowed, ‘‘the language is broad and inflated, and also 
digressive to an extent foreign to Paul’s manner” (Weizsicker). But, after 
some allowance is made for the influence of the subject on the vocabulary and 
spirit of the author, as well as for the possible co-operation * in parts of 
Silvanus, himself a prophet and in all likelihcod the amanuensis of Paul 
(cp. 1 P 5), this feature assumes proportions which are not incompatible with 
the hypothesis that Paul dictated the letter as a whole. f 

J. Weiss (SX., 1892, 253 f.) attributes both letters to the Silvanus who 
wrote 1 P. R. Scott similarly dates them between a.D. 70 and 80, the 
apocalyptic parts by Silvanus (2.6. 1 Th 4-5, 2 Th 1-2), the rest composed 
and the whole edited by Timotheus. 

As for the discrepancies } which have been alleged—the larger emphasis 
on the apostle’s teaching (2*5) and example (37, cp. 1 Th 1°) does not imply 
that some suspicion of his authority must have sprung up at Thessalonika. 
The severe tone (3915) is now as necessary for the Thessalonians’ benefit as 
it was to be soon for the welfare of the Corinthians (1 Co 47! 5°°5) ; the time 
had come for plain-speaking and warning addressed to them as it was to come 
for the Galatians (Gal 417 55-2). The different reasons alleged for working 
at his trade in order to support himself are by no means psychologically 
incompatible. The motive of independence given in 1 Th 2% may quite 
well have been Paul’s primary thought; but this does not exclude the 
secondary motive of wishing to set an example, which might be adduced 
when necessary. Greater difficulty attaches to the apparent change of 
front towards the second advent, which in 1 Th 5? is sudden while in 2 Th 
251. it is the climax of a development. But this is mainly a difference of 
emphasis. Such a discrepancy (cp. Clemen, 7ZZ., 1902, 523 f.) is native to 
almost all the primitive Christian conceptions of the end ; to be instantaneous 
and also to be heralded by a historical prelude were eschatological traits of 
the second advent which were constantly left side by side. On this point 
the variations of the two Thessalonian letters are explicable as proceeding 
from one man’s mind under the stress of different practical religious needs ; 


*“‘The difficulties of structure and expression marking 2 Th 1510 in- 
dicate the introduction by the original writer of some non-Pauline, and 
probably liturgical, sentences” (Findlay, p. lvii; cp. McGiffert, #2. 5054). 
The rhythmical swing of 27>"! suggests a reminiscence or quotation of some 
early Christian hymn, perhaps one of the ψάλμοι which he heard at Corinth 
{1 Ὁ 1515. 

+ ‘* Dass II Th in keinem Sinn ein grosses Buch ist, wird man zugestehen 
. . . aber Paulus kann auch einmal aus einer gewissen Verlegenheit heraus 
einen Brief geschrieben haben, welcher den Eindruck macht, den seine Gegner 
sonst seinem persOnlichen Auftreten nachsagten (2 Co 10”). . . Wenn wir 
1 Th nicht besdssen, wiirden wir II Th nicht beanstanden” (Jiilicher, 56). 

tThe alleged inconsistency of 1° with 1 Th 310, as Jowett shows, is not 
** so great as the difference in tone of 1 Co 1°* and the rest of the epistle.” 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 81 


they do not oblige us to posit any revision or correction of Paul’s ideas by a 
later writer who felt moved to reconcile the apparent postponement of the 
advent with the eager primitive hope.’ Baur, who makes both letters post- 
Pauline, frankly admits that the same writer could have viewed the παρουσία 
from different points of view, and expressed himself in such different ways 
as these epistles indicate. If this is so, there is less reason to hesitate 
about ascribing both to Paul, particularly when the evidence of style and 
vocabulary is found to present no insuperable difficulty. 


§ 6. Integrity of 2 Thess.—Attempts have been made to solve 
the problem by finding in the epistle (a) a Pauline nucleus which 
has been worked over, or (ὁ) a Pauline letter which has either 
suffered interpolation, or (¢) incorporated some earlier fragment 
perhaps of Jewish origin. (a) Starting from the alleged incom- 
patibility of 212 with the eschatology of τ Thess., P. Schmidt 
postulated a genuine Pauline epistle in 1! 21% 218-318 which 
was edited and expanded by a Paulinist in a.D. 69. Apart, how- 
ever, from the absence of any adequate literary criterion for this 
distinction, the passages assigned to Paul are not free from the 
very feature which Schmidt considers fatal to the others, viz. 
similarity to 1 Thess. Besides, little is really gained by postulat- 
ing such a restricted activity on the part of the editor. For his 
purpose it would have been as simple and more effective to 
compose an entire epistle, and the section 2112 is so cardinal 
a feature of the canonical writing that the latter may be said to 
stand or fall with it. As a matter of fact, Hausrath’s conjecture 
that the whole epistle is a later scaffolding built round the original 
Pauline passage in 2112, is even preferable to any theory like 
that of Schmidt. (4) The strongly retributive cast, and the 
emphatic OT colouring, of 1610 might suggest the possibility of 
this passage having been interpolated (McGiffert, ZBz. 5044), 
the eis 6 of v.5 connecting with v.!. This is, at any rate, 
more plausible than the older idea that 2112 represented a 
Montanist interpolation (J. E. C. Schmidt, Bibliothek fiir Kritik 
u, Exegese des NT., 1801, 385 f.), or 219 a Jewish Christian 
piece of apocalyptic (Michelsen, 7'7:, 1876, 213f.). (ὦ Finally, 
in 2712 Spitta (of. cit. pp. 139f.) detects a Caligula-apocalypse,* 
though it is not quite clear how far Timotheus, the supposed 
author of the epistle, has simply reproduced its leading features 
or transcribed part of it. More elaborately but less convincingly 

* The figure of Caligula, with his impious self-deification, is seen by other 
critics behind this passage ; cp. ¢.g. Grotius, Renan, ii. 193 f., iii. 254f., and 
Hausrath, 

6 


82 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


a pre-Christian Jewish apocalypse is found by Pierson and Naber 
(op. cat. pp. 21 f.) in 15-20 21-12 31-6. 14-15) which was worked over by 
the unknown second-century Paul whom the Holland critics find 
so prolific and indispensable. The literary criteria, however, are 
as unreliable here as in the cognate attempts to apportion various 
sections of John’s apocalypse to Jewish and to Christian belief; 
such theories ignore the large amount of common ground 
between primitive Christians and their Jewish compatriots, espe- 
cially in the sphere of eschatology. In 2112 the Jewish basis is 
no more plain than the Christian superstructure. 


The enigmatic μήτε δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δ ἡμῶν, which has frequently been 
used to prove the sub-Pauline date, may refer to something Paul had written 
(either in 1 Thess.* orin a lost letter), or it may denote some misrepresentation 
of his ideas in a pseudonymous letter, purporting to emanate from himself 
or one of his companions. In any case, the expression does not conclusively 
point to a post-Pauline origin ; neither does 3”, which, while conceivably + 
due to the premeditated endeavour of a Paulinist to win authority for his 
work by an appeal to Paul’s signature, may just as reasonably indicate a 
natural precaution of the apostle in view of suspected pseudonymous epistles. Ὁ 
Furthermore, in view of passages like 1 Co 1178 155, it is needless to read a 
second-century emphasis on oral apostolic tradition (Hilgenfeld) into the 
language of 215 38, 

§ 7. Earliest traces of 2 Thess.—The acquaintance of Polykarp with the 
epistle (τ΄ in Pol. xi. 3, and 3!° in xi. 4=et non sicut inimicos tales existimetis), 
and the echoes of the eschatological section in Justin Martyr, dza/. xxxii., 
cx., cxvi., together with its inclusion in Marcion’s Canon, prove the exist- 
ence of the writing early in the second century, and therefore tell against any 
theory of its composition between A.D. 100 and 120. Later, like the first 
epistle, it occurs in the Muratorian Canon; it is explicitly quoted by Ter- 
tullian (.Scorp. xiii., reserr. carnis, xxiv.), Irenzeus (adv. her. iii. 7. 2, v. 
25. 1), and Clem. Alex. (S¢xom. v. 3), whilst Origen appears to have com- 
mented on it as well as on 1 Thess. (cp. D&B. v. 496"). The echoes in 
Barnabas (26= xviii. 2, 28=jiv. 9, 28 %=xv. 5, ὅταν ἐλθῶν ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ 
καταργήσει τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ ἀνόμου καὶ κρινεῖ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς) seem to indicate 
rather more than a common basis of popular tradition (so Rauch in Ζ 1 2,,, 
1895, 458f.), and, like the Apocalypse of John, 2 Thess. appears to have been 
circulated in Gaul (cp, the epistle of Lyons and Vienne, Eus. #. ΕΞ. v. 1). 


* According to Pfleiderer, it indicates a desire on the part of the writer to 
discredit 1 Thess. in favour of his own composition. 

+ Hitzig (Monatsschrift d. wissenschaftl. Vereins in Ziirich, 1856, 57-68) 
considered that 3'7 in this epistle, and 5! 37 in the first, were all the un- 
authentic elements to be found. Wrede saw behind it, as behind Polykarp, 
a corpus Paulinum. 

t Some (¢.g. Weisse, Bettrage zur Kritik d. Paul. Briefe, p. 9; Spitta, 
and J. Weiss) hold it is a marginal note. 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 83 


(B) GALATIANS. 


LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—(for the numerous patristic and medizval 
commentaries, see Lightfoot’s ed. pp. 227f.). Luther’s epoch-making 75 
Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas commentarius (Latin, 1519, etc. ; German, 
1525f.; English, 1575f.); J. Bugenhagen, ddno/t. in Galatas, etc. (1527) ; 
Cajetan, Lzteralis exposztio (Rome, 1529); J. Gagneeus, Brevisstma Scholia 
(Paris, 1543); W. Musculus, Comm. in epistolas P. ad Galat. et Ephes. 
(1561) ; John Prine (Oxford, 1567); Pierre Barahona’s Exfosztio (Salamanca, 
1590); Salmeron (Cologne, 1602); R. Rollock, Azalyszs Logica (London, 
1602); B. Battus, Commentarii (Greifswald, 1613); D. Pareus (Heidelberg, 
1621); Crellius (1628); Ferguson (1659); Cocceius (1665); S. Schmid 
(1690); T. Akersloof, De sendbrief van Paullus an de Galaten (Leiden, 
1695, Germ, tr. 1699); Struensee (Flensburg, 1764); S. J. Baumgarten, 
Auslegung der Briefe P. an dite Galat. Eph. Phil. Coloss. Phim. 
und Thessal. (Halle, 1767); Chandler (1777); Mayer (Vienna, 1788); 
Carpzov (1794); 5. F. N. Morus, Acroases in epistolas P. ad Galat. et 
LEphestos (1795); Hensler (1805); Borger’s /nterpretatio (Leyden, 1807) ; 
von Flatt, Vorlesungen tiber d. Brief an die Galat. (1828); H. E. G. Paulus, 
Des Apostel Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater τε. dmerchristen, etc. (1831) ; 
Matthies (Greifswald, 1833); Riickert (Leipzig, 1833); L. Usteri (Ziirich, 
1833); H. A. Schott (1834)*; Sardinoux (Commentatre, Valence, 1837); 
Olshausen (1840); F. Windischmann (Mayence, 1543); de Wette? (1845) ; 
Hilgenfeld (der G.-brief tibersetat, in setnem gesch. Beztehungen untersucht u. 
erklart, Leipzig, 1852); John Brown (Edin. 1853); S. H. Turner (New 
York, 1856); G. J. Jatho (1856); H. J. T. Bagge (London, 1857); K. 
Wieseler (Gottingen, 1859) *; G. B. Winer‘ (1859); C. Holsten, Zzhalt τι. 
Gedankengang ad. Briefes an die G. (1859); Messmer’s Erkldrung (Brixen, 
1862); Meyer‘ (1862); Bisping? (1863); G. J. Gwynne (Dublin, 1863); 
Vomel (1865); G. W. Matthias (1865); F. X. Reithmayr (1865); Sir 
Stafford Carey (London, 1867); Ellicott * (1867)*; Eadie (1869); Drach 
(Paris, 1871); F. Brandes (1871); Hofmann? (1872); Reuss (1878); G. 
W. Fliigge (1878); Sanday (in Ellicott’s Comm. 1879); Schaff (1881); 
Philippi (1884); Huxtable (Pulpit Comm. 1885); Beet® (1885); Ὁ. 
Palmieri (1886); G. G. Findlay (Zxp. Bzble, 1888); A. Schafer (1890) ; 
Schlatter (1890); E. H. Perowne (Camb. Bible, 1890); Lipsius? (AC. 
1892); Cornely (1892) ; Seidenpfenning (Munich, 1892); Lightfoot !! (1892) *; 
J. Drummond, 716 Ep. of St. Paul to the Gal., explained and 
tllustrated (London, 1893); Kahler? (1893); Jowett® (1804); Zoéckler? 
(1894); J. Dalmer (1897, Giitersloh); Sieffert (Meyer,® 1899)*; J. 
Drummond (/utern. Hadbk. NT, 1899); Gutjahr (1900); Ceulemans, 
Pauli ad Rom., 1 et 2 Co., ad Galatas (1901); O. Schmdller (in Lange’s 
Bibel-Werk, 1901); F. Rendall (EG7. 1903); Adeney (CB. n.d.): 
Bousset? (SV7, 1907); Niglutsch? (Brevis Commentarius, 1907); Zahn? 
(ZX. 1907)*; R. Wulff (1908); B. W. Bacon (New York, 1909); 
Lietzmann (WSNV7, 1910); A. L. Williams (CG7. 1910). 

(4) Studies—(i.) historical :—G. Hermann’s De P. epist. ad Gal. tribus 
primis capitibus dissertatio (1834); Baur’s Paulus (Eng. tr. i. 109 f., 260f.)*; 
Hilgenfeld, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte des Gal.’ (ZIV7., 1860, 206f., 1866, pp 


84 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sorf., 1884, pp. 303f.); Volkmar, Paulus von Damaskus bis zum Galasr- 
brief (1887); Holtzmann, BZ. ii. 316-318; Sabatier (ZSR. v. 359-364); 
Kappeler (Prot. Kirchenzeitung, 1892, pp. 714f., 746f., 763f.) ; Schmiedel 
(Ε Δὲ. 1617-1626) ; Jacquier (in Vigouroux, 298. iii. 61-77). (ii.) on the text : 
Klostermann’s Probleme im Aposteltext (1883); Baljon, de tekst der brieven 
van Paulus aan de Rometinen, de Corinthiérs, en de Galatiérs (1884), and 
Exegetisch-kritische verhandeling over den brief v. P. a. d. Gal. (1889); 
Cramer, de brief van Paulus aan de Galatiérs in zijn oorspronkelijken vorm 
hersteld en verklaard, 1890; and Volter (dze Composition der paulin. Haupt- 
briefe 7. Der Rimer- und Galaterbrief, 1890) ; Sulze (Protest.-Kirchenzeitung, 
1888, 981 f.), with Zimmer, Zur Textkritik d. Galaterbriefes (ZWT., 1881, 
pp. 481f., 1882, pp. 129f.). (111.} on Gal 2 and Ac 15, C. Bertheau, Zznige 
Bemerkungen tiber die Stelle Gal. 2 und thr Verhiltniss zur Apgeschichte, 
(Hamburg, 1854, a reply to Baur); Zimmer’s Galat. und Afpostelgeschichte 
(1887); M. Thomas, Mélanges @histotre et de litterature religieuse (Paris, 
1899), pp. 1-195; R. Mariano, Ure. (1902) i. pp. 111 f.; Volter, Paulus 
und Seine Briefe, 1905, pp. 253-273; Bacon, Story of St. Paul, pp. 116f., 
and in 4777. (1907) 454f.; J. Kreyenbiihl (ZVW., 1907, 89f.). (ἰν.) 
general: Chemnitz, Collegium theologicum super Ep. P. ad Gal. (Jena, 
1656); Semler, Paraphrasis (1779); F. J. A. Schiitze, Scholia in Epist. ad 
Galatas (1784); Mynster, Zznl. in d. Brief an dte Gal. (1825); W. 8. 
Wood, Studies in St. Paul’s Ep. to the G. (1887); Belser, dze Selbstuer- 
theidigung des hi. Paulus im Galat, 1-271 (1896); A. B. Bruce, St. Paul's 
Conception of Christiantty* (1894), 37f.; W. M. Ramsay, Azstorical 
Commentary (1899); M. Dods in DB. ii. 93-98; Haupt’s introductory 
studies in Deutsche Evang. Blitter (1904), 1-16, 89-108, 161-183, 238-259 ; 
R. Ὁ. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles* (pp. 60f.) ; von Dobschitz (Ure. 99f.) ; 
and R. Scott, 7he Pauline Epistles (1909), 103-116. 


§ 1. Occasion.—Although the Galatian epistle was written after 
Paul had visited Thessalonika, the Galatian churches were founded 
during a mission which he had undertaken some time before he 
crossed from Asia to Europe. From the more or less direct re- 
miniscences of which the letter happens to be full, it is possible to 
reconstruct a preliminary outline of his relation to these churches, 
without calling in evidence from Acts which is disputable and 
which falls to be considered separately in the first instance. 

Paul had visited the Galatian churches twice.* On the 
former of these visits (418 τὸ πρότερον), though broken down by 
illness (Ὁ 2 Co 127), he had been enthusiastically and hospitably 
welcomed (4!*15); many had been won over from polytheism and 
idolatry (48) to the knowledge of God, #.e. (as at Thessalonika) 
to faith in Christ the crucified (31), whose death | meant their 

* This must be maintained resolutely against all attempts, especially in 


the interests of a theory, to make τὸ πρότερον Ξε πάλαι or iampridem. 
+ The emphasis in Galatians upon the death of Jesus was due to the 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL ὃς 


deliverance from slavish ignorance and the present evil world 
(14 318). The immediate result of the mission was an outburst 
of religious fervour (3° 445). The local Christians, who were 
predominantly Gentile by birth, made a promising start (57). On 
his second visit (418 17 521), Paul found in many of them a 
disheartening slackness, due to discord and incipient legalism. 
His plain speaking gave offence (415) in some quarters, though it 
was not wholly ineffective. Otherwise, the second visit (1° 58) 
is left in the shadow.* So far as it was accompanied by warn- 
ings, these were rather general than elicited by the presence of 
any definite and imminent peril to the churches. 

Not long after this visit, some Judaising opponents + of the 
apostle, headed by one prominent, and evidently powerful 
individual (519), made their appearance among the Galatians, 
with disturbing and unsettling effects (23). Their ‘gospel’ 
was not freedom from, but fidelity to, the Law (1610), which 
Paul’s ‘gospel’ was alleged to contradict and_ invalidate. 
Arguing from the OT, they represented Paul’s gospel as an 
imperfect message which required to be supplemented by legal 
exactitude, { including ritual observances (419) and even circum- 
cision.§ As a corollary of this, Paul’s apostolic position was 


exigencies of the local controversy ; the Judaising propaganda had naturally 
forced this point into prominence. Yet it must have been so from the opening 
of the mission; Paul had begun there as at Corinth by ‘ depicting’ the cruci- 
fied (3'). The sole explicit allusion to the resurrection of Jesus is due to 
the fact that Paul desires to indicate his commission as the direct and divine 
gift of the reigning Christ (11 15), not of an earthly Jesus known in the flesh. 

*Tt is not quite clear whether the traces of the Judaistic agitation were 
found by Paul on this visit (so especially Hemsen, Schott, Reuss, Credner, 
Sieffert, Lipsius, Holsten, Weiss, Pfleiderer, Weizsicker, and Zockler), or 
whether they sprang up only after he had left (so, ¢g., Bleek, Philippi, 
Renan, Hofmann, Zahn). The tone of surprise which marks the opening of 
the epistle tells on the whole in favour of the latter theory. 

+ The contemptuous anonymity of τινες (17) resembles that of Col 2%. 
They were emissaries of the Jerusalem-church, like the high churchmen of 
Ac 15}, Gal 21%, reactionaries of James’ party. 

$+ Apparently, however, they withheld from the deluded Galatians the 
inference that the entire law had to be obeyed (5%). 

§ This rite, they alleged (511), Paul had himself employed (in the case of 
Timotheus?). As some of the Galatians (6!) had been carried away by the 
propaganda, which appealed at once to higher and to lower motives, promising 
a complete possession thereby of the privileges of God’s Israel (61°) and also 
exemption from persecution at the hands of Jews (5! 6:32), JZy brands οἱ 
wounds, says Paul, are those of Jesus, not of legal circumcision (617). 


86 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


depreciated. His authority, the Galatians were told, was 
derived from the apostles at Jerusalem, and consequently his 
teaching must be checked and tested by the orthodox standard 
which these emissaries claimed to embody. In short, the 
admission of pagans to the true church and promises (359: 16) 
of God required the observance of the Mosaic law, which formed 
the sole valid charter of divine privilege and messianic in- 
heritance. This, and the consequent disparagement of the 
apostle * as an unauthorised agent, formed probably an easy 
relapse for people who, like other Christians, may have felt the 
depth and inwardness of Paul’s spiritual gospel too much for 
their average powers, particularly when the dominating influence 
of his personality was removed. 

The mischief done by this propaganda alarmed Paul. 
Matters evidently had not yet gone too far to be remedied ; 
only a few had been circumcised. Consequently as he was 
unable (or unwilling) for some reason to revisit them, he wrote 
this trenchant letter in order to shame them out of their levity 
and retrograde superstitions, by reiterating and expanding the 
spiritual principles of his gospel as divinely authoritative f and 
morally adequate. How the information of the Galatian lapse 
reached him, it is not possible to say.{ There is no trace of any 
letter sent by the Galatians (Hofmann, Ramsay). But the gravity 
of the situation renders it unlikely that he delayed for any length 
of time in writing to counteract his opponents, and to judge from 
allusions like those in 18 (ταχέως and perariHeoOe—the lapse still 
in process), the interval between the reception of the news and 
the composition of the letter must have been comparatively 
brief. 

§ 2. Outline.—The epistle is one of the books militant in 
ancient literature. After a brief introduction (11), Paul, instead 


* Implied in their catchword, those of repute (ol δοκοῦντες, 28). Other 
echoes of their terminology can be overheard in such phrases as we are 
Abraham's seed (3'*), and Jerusalem which is our mother (cp. 435), as well 
as in their charges against Paul of seeking to please men (119), and preaching 
circumcision (54). For the phrase sinners of Gentiles (235), cp. Jub 23°. 

t Οὐδὲ ἐγώ (112), any more than the original apostles. Paul, too, 
believed by revelation, not by relation. 

t Lightfoot’s suggestion that a messenger brought news of the disaffection 
and also of the lack of heartiness in responding to the financial appeal (1 C: 
16! = Gal 67), is as plausible as any. It need not imply, however, tha! 
Galatians was not composed till after 1 (and 2) Corinthians (see below). 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 87 


of opening with his usual word of commendation, dashes into 
a personal and historical vindication of his independence as a 
Christian apostle; this, developed negatively and positively, forms 
the first of three great sections in the epistle (15-274). 


These opening pages, especially, justify the comparison of Galatians to 
a torrent (‘fone continuous rush, a veritable torrent—of genuine and 
inimitable Paulinism, like a mountain stream in full flow, such as may 
often have been seen by his Galatians,” J. Macgregor. ‘‘ Unfinished phrases, 
daring omissions, parentheses which leave us out of sight and out of breath, 
rabbinical subtleties, audacious paradoxes, vehement apostrophes pour on like 
surging billows,” Sabatier); cp. P. Farel, ‘Exegése du Gal 12°’ (R7QR., 
1910, 332-338). 

The address (17 ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Tadarlas) is singularly curt, and 
Paul associates no one by name with himself. The unique οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες 
ἀδελφοί (13), to which Ph 4! is only a partial parallel, implies no more than 
a group of Christians who sympathised with his gospel. There is nothing 
in the words to suggest either that he was on a journey, away from any 
settled church, or, on the other hand, that he backs up his admonition by 
the authority of a church like Antioch. 


In 21521 he passes from a hasty * account of his interview 
with Peter into a sort of monologue f upon the incompatibility 
of the Mosaic law with the Christian gospel, which starts 
a fresh rush of expostulation and appeal (3-5!*) upon the 
alternatives of Law and Spirit. Faith dominates this section, 
faith in its historical career and as the vantage-ground of 
Christianity. The genuine sons of Abraham are not legalistic 
Jewish Christians, but those who simply possess faith; the 
much-vaunted Law is a mere provisional episode culminating 
in Christianity (3728) as the religion of filial confidence and 
freedom (37-4!").f A passionate appeal to the Galatians 
follows (4%); then, harping still on Abraham, the apostle 

* “* He is far too quick a thinker to be a master of mere narrative; the 
question of Christian freedom was too hot in his heart to leave him free fers 
reminiscence, and the matter is not very clear” (Glover, Comftict of Religions 
in Early Roman Empire, 1909, p. 168). This applies to the Antioch story 
as well as to the preceding narrative. 

+ 27 is an indirect summary of what he actually said; in 218?! the 
passion wakened by the memory of the situation carries him straight forward 
into the situation of his readers. Years had passed since the crisis, but he 
lived it over again as he recollected how he had fought for people like the 
G., who were exposed toa similar danger of religious compromise (cp. Gercke, 
GGA., 1894, 576f.). On the thought of the whole passage, see T. H. 
Green’s Works, iii. 186 f. 

t On 3-47 cp. Max Conrat in ZVW. (1904) 204-227 (‘Das Erbrecht 
im Galaterbrief’). 


88 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


essays, with fresh rabbinic dialectic (on 4708! see Linder’s essay 
in ZWT., 1900, 223-226), to establish spiritual Christianity over 
legalism as the religion that is both free and final, applying this 
to the moral situation of the Galatians (51:12). The mention of 
freedom * leads him to define the moral responsibilities of the 
faith (518-610), in order to prevent misconceptions and to re- 
inforce the claims of the gospel upon the individual and social 
life of the Galatians. The epilogue (611-2) reiterates, in a series 
of abrupt, emphatic sentences, the main points of the epistle. 


Another scheme of the epistle (so, ¢.g., Holsten, Sabatier, Sieffert, and 
Lipsius) is to find in 18-27! 31-41! 415-610 three successive arguments upon (a) 
the divine origin of Paul’s gospel, (ὁ) the complete right of Gentile Christians 
to the messianic inheritance, and (c) the vital connection between the 
Christian Spirit and the moral life. 

61-18 is an emphatic postscript or summary, written by Paul himself. 
For similar instances of ancient letters containing autographic conclusions, 
after the main body of the letter had been dictated,t+ see Cic. ad Aftic. viii. 
I. I, and Aug. zs. 146, with the remark of Julius Africanus (Rhet. Latin. 
min., ed. Halmel, 44877) : ‘‘ obseruabant veteres, carissimis sua manu scribere 
vel plurimum subscribere.” This leaves it an open question whether ἔγραψα 
(cp. Abbott, Dzat. 2691) does not refer to the entire epistle (so, ¢.g., Mill, 
Ewald, Hofmann, Eadie, Zockler, Clemen, and Zahn, quoting from a letter 
of Ambrose [i. 3] to the Emperor Gratian: ‘‘scripsisti tua totam epistolam 
manu, ut ipsi apices fidem tuam pietatemque loquerentur’); probably, how- 
ever, it is the epistolary aorist (cp. Philem 19), and 611-18 is to be classified 
with 2 Th 317,1 Co 167-*4, and Col 418, In any case, γράμματα means not 
‘epistle’ but the characters of the handwriting. On placards (cp. 3! προεγράφη) 
and public inscriptions (cp. Sieffert, p. 349 ; Ramsay, 466), large letters were 
employed at the end or at the beginning in order to catch the eye (Lucian, 
Hermot. 11, Gymn. 22). Plutarch (cp. Field’s Otium Norvicense, iii. 191) 
narrates that Cato wrote histories for his son ἰδίᾳ χειρὶ καὶ μεγάλοις γράμμασιν. 


§ 3. Zhe text.—Galatians, for all its unpremeditated vigour, is 
composed § not only with some care for language, but even with 


* In spite of coincidences like P®=Mt 1615-17, gi—=Mt τοῦ, 510. 15 — 
Mk 12” (Lk 20%), 544=Mk 125!, 613=Mt 234 (Lk 114), and the apparent 
similarity of 5* 21. 53 to Lk 13°* (cp. 64%=Lk 138), it is hazardous to admit 
more than the bare possibility that Paul had in mind some sayings of Jesus 
against legalism (Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, 70f.). 

t ‘‘ Exact analogies to this may be found in many Egyptian papyri, where 
the body of a document is written by a friend or clerk, and the principal 
appends his ratification in a large hand at the close” (Kenyon, Habs to 
Textual Criticism of NT, 1901, p. 26). See above, p. 51. 

t For ἔγραψα in this sense, cp. Xen. Anad. i. 9. 253 Thuc. i. 129, 3; 
Ezra 44 (LXX), and Lucian, Dial. Meretr. το. 

§ Cp. the minute analysis of the whole epistle in Blass’s die RAythmen der 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 89 


a rhythmical flow which recalls in several piaces the methods 
of contemporary rhetorical prose. In this respect it agrees with 
1 Thessalonians (Blass, of. cit. pp. 61 f., 196-204), 1 Corinthians 
(op. cit. pp. 53 ἔν, 76 f.), Ro 31% 1128-8 etc. (of. cit. pp. 68 f.), and 
Philippians (0. cit. 66 f., 73 f.),* all of which are more or less 
marked by rhythmical features; whereas in 2 Corinthians, for 
example, the indications of rhetorical structure are much less 
prominent. How far Paul was conscious of such traits of 
composition and style, it is impossible to say. Their presénce is 
due doubtless to his early training in the schools ; probably they 
had become a second nature to him (see above, p. 57). But 
they are sufficient to prove that he wrote with some care and 
rhetorical finish,t even in epistles which appear, on a superficial 
examination, to have been written under an overmastering freshet 
of emotion. 


The extant text, however, is not free from serious difficulties. Its frequent 
roughnesses have suggested the hypothesis that marginal glosses and inter- 
polations have become incorporated here and there in the original ; but in 
most cases$ the evidence is far from cogent, as, ¢g., for the conjecture 
τεσσάρων for δεκατεσσάρων (2', e.g. Grotius, Semler, Keil, Bottger, Reiche, 
Michelsen, Baljon: pp. 168-9),§ the omission of 2 (Michelsen, Weisse, van 
Manen, Baljon: pp. 172-174) or of 3)% (Weiss, Cramer: 3!%-, Baljon: 
pp. 175-178),|| and the hypothesis of a marginal gloss in 61 (Laurent). On 
the other hand, if 4255 (τὸ yap Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αραβίᾳ) is correctly read, 
it probably represents the explanatory and prosaic marginal note of a later 
editor (Mill, Holsten, Schott, Cramer, Prins, Baljon, p. 185), as many 
scholars have seen, since the days of Bentley (opuscula philologica, 1781, 
533f.). The transposition of 25: to a place after 2! (so J. Weiss, SX., 1893, 
pp. 504f.) clears up the movement of the whole passage, but it must not be 
defended on the ground that the incident of 2°-5 could not have taken place in 


astanischen τ. rimischen Kunstprosa (1905), pp. 43-53, 204-216, where the 
text is perversely handled in the interests of the theory. 

* In 3} (ἐμοὶ μὲν ὧν ὀκνηρόν, ὑμῖν δ᾽ ἀσφαλές) the comic trimeter may well 
be, like that in 1 Co 1538, a reminiscence of Menander. 

+ D. H. Miiller’s strophic theory of prophetic prose has been applied by 
Wehofer to the epistolography of the early Christian fathers (SBA W. cxliii., 
1901), but unsuccessfully upon the whole. 

t See the essay by Prins (77:, 1887, 7of.). Jowett’s apt remark that 
““ἴῃ a writer at once so subtle and so abrupt as St. Paul, obscurity is not 
a strong ground of objection,” is often forgotten in criticism of this kind. 

§ The considerable support once given to this supposed change of δ᾽ into 
ιδ᾽ (from Capellus to Bertholdt, Guericke, Schott, and Wurm, in last century) 
was due to chronological prepossessions, 

ll Michaelis (Zzn/. p. 745) and Liicke (S., 1828, pp. 101 1.) are among 
those who take 3” as a marginal gloss, 


90 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Jerusalem, though παρείσακτοι would fit Syrian Antioch in some respects 
better than the capital. The reading and rendering of 2° (οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν 
εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγΎἢ) was debated as early as the second century (cp. Zahn’s 
excursus in his edition, pp. 287-296, and K. Lake in Zx.’, March 1906, 
236-245); the omission not only of ols (so Marcion, SyrP@", and some Gk. 
MSS) but also of οὐδέ (Gk. MSS, D, old Latin, archetype of G, etc.) has 
early and strong support (so, ¢.g., Semler, Michaelis, Klostermann: of. cit, 
55-58, Volter, J. Weiss: SA, 1893, 504f., and Lake). The dubiety about 
a negative is not unexampled in ancient literature; a similar problem arises 
over the insertion of oz by most modern editors in Cicero’s criticism of 
Lucretius (Q. F%. ii. 9. 4, cp. also ad@ Aft. xiv. 1-2). In Gal. the matter is 
complicated by the exegesis of 28. Was Titus circumcised, and was this 
brought up against Paul (cp. 5", so Spitta), who defends himself by replying 
that he was not comfelled to be circumcised? [5 25, therefore, the confession 
of a momentary lapse of judgment, which the later church sought to smooth 
over by the insertion of the negative? The internal probabilities seem to 
point the other way, but the problem can scarcely be said to be settled 
satisfactorily one way or another, owing to our ignorance of the facts at issue. 


§ 4. The destination—The problems of Galatians belong to 
historical and theological rather than to literary criticism. It is 
impossible, however, to discuss its destination or date without 
some reference to the questions raised by the Lucan narrative 
in Acts (especially of Ac 11-16), which describes, from a d:fférent 
point of view, most of the incidents presupposed or mentioned 
in the epistle. 

The geographical situation of the Galatian Christians has led 
to a debate as warm and intricate as that waged over the problem 
of Hannibal’s route across the Alps. ‘Two rival hypotheses hold 
the field. The matter in dispute is the meaning of Γαλατία in 13 
(cp. τ Co 16"), 15 it (a) the large Roman province of that name, 
including the southern townships of Derbe, Lystra, Ikonium, and 
Pisidian Antioch, besides part of Phrygia; or (ὁ) the smaller 
region of Galatia proper, in the ethnographical sense of the 
term. lying north-east in Asia Minor? 

The latter view belongs to the North Galatian or traditional theory, 
which is advocated by editors of Acts like H. J. Holtzmann, Wendt, Blass, 
Hilgenfeld, and Knopf; by editors of Galatians like Windischmann, Holsten, 
Wieseler, Reithmayr, Holsten, Lightfoot (cp. Co/ossians, 24f.), Howson 
(Speaker's Comm. 1881), Riickert, Jowett, J. Dalmer, Lipsius, Sieffert, Zockler 
(also SK., 1895, pp. 51-102)*, G. G. Findlay, Lietzmann, Bousset, and 
Williams ; and by general critics like Godet, Trenkle (Z7n/. 21), Salmon, 
S. Davidson, Schafer (Zz7/. 88 f.), Jiilicher, Haupt (.SA., 1906, 144-146), 
Hoennicke (Chronologie des Paulus, 32{.), von Dobschiitz, Vischer (Dz 
Paulusbriefe, 1904, 30f), Mommsen (ZVIV., 1901, 86), Schiirer (7?7., 1892, 
460f.), Gheorghiu, ἃ. H. Gilbert (Student's Life of St. Paul, 1902, pp. 260- 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL ΟἹ 


272), Chase (2.52.4 viii. gorf., ix. 331f.)*, and Barth (2 7717. § 7). Two 
thoroughgoing presentations of this theory are now accessible in Schmiedel’s 
article (#47. 1596-1616), and A. Steinmann’s essays on Dre Adfassungszeit 
des Galaterbriefes (1906) and Der Leserkrets der CGalaterbriefes (1908), which 
discuss with minute scholarship every relevant point, exegetical or historical. 
Schmiedel’s attitude towards Acts is much less conservative than Steinmann’s, 
and the latter’s sweep of argument is wider (embracing Weber especially, in 
addition to Ramsay); but the two statements supplement each other 
admirably, and together they constitute by far the most adequate plea for 
the North Galatian hypothesis. 

The South Galatian hypothesis was first popularised by Perrot (De 
Galatia provincia Romana, 1867, pp. 43f.), and then restated, with a 
wealth of geographical learning, by Prof. Sir W. M. Ramsay in a masterly 
series of articles and volumes (e.g. Historical Geography of Asia Minor, 
1890; Exp.‘ ii. 1-22, ix. 43f., 137f., 288f., etc.; SB. iv. 15-57; CRE. 
8f.,74f.,97f; DB. ii. 81f. ; The Cities of St. Paul, 1907 ; as well as in his 
commentary). The theory is accepted, though with many modifications and 
for varying reasons, by editors of Acts like Bartlet (cp. also his 44. 71f., 
84f.), Jacobsen, Rackham, and Forbes; by editors of Galatians like Steck, 
Zahn, Adeney, Gutjahr, Bacon (cp. also Axg.° vii. 123f., x. 351 f.), and 
Rendall (cp. also Zxf.* ix. 254-264) ; and by general critics like Niemeyer 
(de tempore quo epistola ad Gal. conscripta sit accuratius definiendo, Gottingen, 
1827), Renan (iii. 311f.), Hausrath (iii. 146-199), Weizsaicker ( χαλγό. Καὶ 
deutsche Theol., 1876, 606 f., and AA. i. 252f.), Pfleiderer (Ure. i. 191-210), 
E. H. Gifford (#xf.‘ x. 1-20), McGiffert (4A. 178 f., 221 f.), O. Holtzmann 
(ZKG., 1894, 336-346; ZNW., 1905, 102-104), von Soden (/V7. 56f.), 
Woodhouse (£22, 1592f.), J. Weiss (PRE. x., 1901, pp. 554-560, 
‘Kleinasien’), Ὁ. Walker (47. xiii. 511-514), Belser, Clemen, and 
Askwith (Date and Destination of Ep. to Galatians, 1899) ; it is worked out 
most compactly and thoroughly in exegesis by Zahn (see also his Introduction, 
§ 11), and from a special standpoint by Prof. Valentin Weber in a long 
series of ingenious articles (cp. especially Aatholik, 1898, pp. 193f., 
301f., 412f., 1899, pp. 45f., 1900, pp. 339f., 481 f.) and monographs.* 


“Especially Der heclige Paulus vom Aposteliibereinkommen bis sum 
Apostelkonzil (1901), and Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem 
Apostelkonzil (1900); the third section of the latter is reprinted in Der 
Galaterbrief aus sich selbst geschichtlich erkldrt (1902). His main con- 
tentions are supported by Belser (7Q., 1901, 285f.), Rohr (Ad/cem. Lit. 
Blatt., 1901, 226f.), and Gutjahr (in his ed. of Thess. and Gal., 1904), and 
rejected not only by Jiilicher (7ZZ., 1901, 469-472) and Holtzmann (GG4., 
1902, 1f.) but by Steinmann, Weber is right in demurring to the undue 
sharpening of the differences between Acts and Galatians, but he goes to the 
other extreme in minimising them. His general scheme is as follows :—Paul’s 
first visit to Jerusalem (Gal 118-30 = Ac 950-28) followed by missionary activity from 
Tarsus (Ac 9539) and Antioch (Ac 117-85, Gal 131-22) ; his second visit (Ac 114 
12% =Gal 2119), with the double object of conveying the money (only hinted at 
in Gal 2!°) and securing the rights of his gospel (in private conference, Gal 
254); then the first tour (Ac 147!-%=Gal 4%), with a double visit to 8, 


92 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


-According to Weber, the visit of Gal 2! is not that of Ac 15 brt that of 
“ Ac 11%, after which, but before the Council of Jerusalem, Paul composed 
Galatians (Antioch, A.D. 49; cp. Ac 1438). This implies that the opposition of 
Peter and the Judaisers could not have taken place after the Council, and that 
the church of Jerusalem did not interfere with Paul’s method of ignoring the 
law in his Syrian and Cilician churches, though his practice was well known 
to them. But sucha hypothesis is quite improbable. Gal 133 simply states 
that they knew the bare fact of his activity in preaching, not that they tacitly 
approved of his methods till their hand was forced by the Judaistic party in 
the church. Furthermore, the theory is open to the same objections as 
similar forms of the S. Galatian hypothesis, that it arbitrarily makes the 
burning question of circumcision for Gentile Christians emerge in an acute 
shape some time before the period of Ac 15—a view for which there is no 
evidence in Acts (cp. Steinmann’s Aédfassungzezt, 170f.), and against which 
the probabilities of the general situation tell heavily. Finally, it involves 
the incredible idea that Paul circumcised Timotheus (Ac 16%) after he had 
written Gal 53, 

Weber’s reconstruction is rejected by Zahn, who also differs in his view 
of Ac 168 and on some other details from Ramsay ; the latter scholar’s inter- 
pretation of the Lucan passages, of the date, and of several passages in the 
epistle, is challenged by many of the South Galatian theorists themselves, so 
that, beyond the general contention that Galatians was written to the church 
of Derbe, Lystra, Ikonium, etc., there is seldom much unity in their ranks. 

An intermediate hypothesis, advocated by Mynster, Cornely (£77. iii. 
415f.), Jacquier (V7. i. 171f.), and (temporarily) Zahn, which has been 
described as Pan-Galatian, views the churches of Galatia addressed by Paul 
as at least including some to the N. of Southern Galatia. This modification 
attempts to do justice to the plain sense of Ac 168, but it fails to bring out 
the evident homogeneity of the churches addressed in Galatians, and involves 
more difficulties than it solves (cp. Gilbert, of. cz¢. 266f., and Steinmann’s 
A bfassungzeit, 166f.). 

Twice in Acts, Luke alludes to a mission which appears to 
coincide with the Galatian enterprise presupposed in this epistle. 
The first of these passages is Ac 16°, 

Ai μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησίαι ἐστερεοῦντο τῇ πίστει Kal ἐπερίσσευον τῷ 
ἀριθμῷ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν. But they (i.e. Paul, Silas, and Timotheus) 
traversed (διῆλθον δέ, in contrast to the South Galatian mission 
just concluded:* not recapitulating 1-4, but marking a fresh 
departure) τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν, since they had been 
forbidden t by the holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia (explaining 
Galatia, after which the Antioch-outburst (Gal 2™f-) so affected the Galatian 
converts that the epistle had to be written. 

* The purpose of 15°° (/et us υἱεῖ the brothers in every city where we 
proclaimed the word of God) had been accomplished (16): #5= 1471); ep. 
N. J. D. White in Hermathena, 1903, 128 f. 


+ The S. Galatian hypothesis, as advocated by Ramsay, implies that 
κωλυθέντες is a pte, of subsequent action ; the natural and grammatical sense, 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 93 


why, instead of turning west,* they pushed north). And when 
they came opposite Mysia (κατά, up as far as: striking it well to 
the north of Phrygia, in the neighbourhood of Doryleum or 
Cotyzeum) they tried to enter Bithynia (north of Phrygia), but the 
Spirit of Jesus would not permit them. So, ignoring Mysia (as 
part of the prohibited Asia), they went down to Troas (i.e. due 
west). Then Luke comes upon the scene himself, and Paul 
plunges into the European mission. 

Every phrase of this summary paragraph has had pages of 
discussion poured over it. ‘To the present writer it seems that the 
disputed words τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Ταλατικὴν χώραν can only mean, 
in the light of passages like 192! (διελθὼν τὴν Μακεδονίαν καὶ 
"Axatav) and 275 (κατὰ τὴν Κιλικίαν καὶ Παμφυλίαν), Phrygia and 
the region of Galatia, Φρυγίαν, here at any rate (as in 210 182), 
is not an adjective, and καί does not mean or. The phrase 
therefore is not an equivalent for Phrygia-Galatica, or for the 
borderland between Eastern Phrygia and Western Galatia: it 
denotes not one district but two. As Luke uses Pamphilia 
(1313), Pisidia (1314), and Lykaonia (14°) in their geographical 
sense, it is fair to infer that he does so in 16® unless there is 
good reason to the contrary. 

The South Galatian theorists ask why he did not write Γαλατίαν outright. 
Probably because it would have been misleading; the great province of 
ἡ Vadarla or 7 Γαλατικὴ ἐπαρχία included the Lykaonian and Phrygian 
townships already mentioned. In order to emphasise the new departure, 
Luke uses ¢he region of Galatia, t.e. the district inhabited by the Galatians 
proper, lying beyond Phrygia. The terminology therefore really supports 
the North Galatian interpretation. It is a periphrasis, like χώρα τῆς 
"Iovdalas (Ac τοῦ 267, cp. Az. 1602). Per contra, if Luke had viewed 
Derbe, Lystra, and the rest of Paul’s earlier mission-field as belonging to 
Γαλατία proper, it is inexplicable why the name should not occur in Ac 13-14. 
Furthermore, Derbe and Lystra belonged to Lykaonia (Ac 14% 11), not to 
Phrygia, so that the South Galatian view, that Ac 168 is recapitulatory, breaks 
down at the outset. Harnack (SVT, iii. 58) suggests that Luke spoke of ἡ 
Γαλατικὴ χώρα ““ because Galatia was poor in cities, and because in official 
terminology the word ‘ regiones’ was also used of this province. It follows, 
therefore, that in the much debated question where the Galatia of Paul is 


on the contrary, implies that it refers either to an antecedent or at best to a 
synchronous experience (cp. Schmiedel, 581. 1599 ; Moulton’s Grammar of 
NT Greek, i. 132f.). It was apropos of this forced construction of διῆλθον 
« + . κωλυθέντες that Chase wrote, ‘‘the South Galatian theory is shipwrecked 
on the rock of Greek grammar.” 

*’ Agia here=the coast-land round Ephesus, as in 2° (where Phrygia is 
also distinguished from it, by a popular use of the geographical term) and 273, 


94 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to be found, we may not claim Luke as a witness in favour of the South- 
Galatian theory ; rather we must regard him as a witness to the contrary.” 

Luke’s usage, it may be retorted, is not decisive for Paul. This is 
perfectly true, but Paul’s use of Γαλατία corresponds to the inferences from 
Acts. It is a rather precarious conclusion that because he was a Roman 
citizen, he must have confined himself to the Roman provincial titles, and 
that therefore Γαλατία in Gal 13 means the province, not the country, of 
the Galate. No fixed rule of this kind can be attributed to him; not even 
Asiatics like Strabo and Dio Cassius adhered to sucha practice. In Gal 17 
Paul himself does not speak in this way about Syria and Cilicia, and even 
in Gal 1” (cp. 1 Th 212) it is not necessary to suppose that he alluded to 
Judza in anything except the popular or geographical sense (cp. Steinmann’s 
Leserkrets, 76 ἴ., 103, and Schmiedel, of. ct. 1604 f.). Furthermore, in Ac 2°, 
Asia and Pontus denote districts, not provinces, and the same is probably true 
of Cappadocia, as of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asiaint Pr ‘Of 
the vast province of Galatia the part to be visited [by the bearer of 1 Ρ] 
between Pontus and Cappadocia could be only Galatia proper, the Galatia 
of St. Paul’s epistles” (Hort, 1 Peter, pp. 183 f.). 


Paul and his companions had no definite sphere in view 
when they left Lykaonia; certainly neither Troas nor Bithynia 
was their objective. Luke’s narrative, or rather summary, at this 
point becomes singularly curt and rapid. Apparently he was not 
interested in the Northern Galatian mission. His engrossing aim 
is to get Paul across to Europe; and the approach of the 
Macedonian mission, in which he himself first joined the apostle, 
leads him to hurry over the movements of the apostles in the 
interior of Asia Minor. It does not follow, however, that these 
movements were a series of purposeless journeys in which the 
evangelists were casting about in vain for a sphere and were 
finally shut up to make for Troas. On the contrary, what the 
N. Galatian view involves is that during this journey Paul took 
advantage of his enforced detention, owing to sickness, in order 
to evangelise in the western * part of Galatia. “It is sufficient 
to suppose that during his illness, or during his convalescence, 
Paul founded a few churches, none of them very far apart, and 
all situated in the W. of North Galatia” (ZB, 1606-1607). 
The possibility of this is admitted not only by Zahn (JZ. i. 
189 f.) but by J. Weiss, one of the most cautious and careful of 
the South Galatian theorists (‘‘ Natiirlich kann man sich denken, 
dass die Missionire etwa von Amorium (oder von Nakoleia 


* The alternative form of the N. Galatian theory (so, ¢.g., Lightfoot) is to 
regard Ancyra, Tavium, and Juliopolis, as also and chiefly evangelised by 
Paul. Zéckler’s modification (as above) seems preferable. 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 95 


tiber Orkistos, Ramsay, Geogr. p. 230) aus den Versuch 
gemacht hatten, in Pessinus und Germa zu predigen, und als sie 
pie Verhdltnisse dort ungunstig oder den Ertoig gering fanden, 
sich nach Dorylaum wandten,” of. cz¢t. pp. 558 ἢ). The evidence 
of Galatians shows, however, that this mission was more than a 
possibility and by no means an unsuccessful venture. There is 
little doubt that διέρχεσθαι in 16%, taken along with 18”, implies 
preaching-activity, not simply travelling (cp. Ramsay’s article in 
Exp ® 1896, May).* 

Two or three years later, Paul paid a second visit to Galatia 
(Ac 18%).¢ After spending some time there (i.e. at Antioch), 
he went off on a tour through the region of Galatia and Phrygia 
(διερχόμενος καθεξῆς τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν), establishing 
all the disciples. ‘This time he moved from east to west, reversing 
the route of τόθ, and reaching Ephesus via Asian Phrygia. 
In contrast to the settled churches of S. Galatia (165), the North 
Galatian Christians were as yet scattered and unorganised; they 
were naturally more liable, on this account, to be unsettled by 
Judaistic agitators from the far south than communities like 
those of Ikonium, Lystra, and Antioch, which were closer to the 
centre, and also in possession of the decrees (164). Furthermore, 
Paul tells the Galatians about the controversy as if it were a 
novelty. There is no οἴδατε δέ (Holtzmann). This suits the 
N. Galatians rather better than the S. Galatians (Ac 164), who 
must have learned of the matter for themselves at an early date. 

Such is, on the North Galatian hypothesis, the Lucan 
narrative of the Galatian mission. It remains to notice one or 
two objections on exegetical or geographical grounds. 


(a) The title Ga/atéans (Gal 31) is alleged to be more suitable to the inhabit- 
ants of Southern Galatia than to those of N. Galatia. Sir W. M. Ramsay 
(/7ist. Comm. 137 1.) finds that the N. Galatian theorists, who deny this, 
show ‘‘no sign” of having ‘‘specially studied the use and implication of 


* The admission that Paul did preach in N. Galatia (in Ac 18”) makes it 
extremely unlikely that, on the S. Galatian hypothesis, the epistle was 
written after this, since Γαλατία would then include N. Galatia, and the 
close unity of the readers’ situation forbids this (see above). 

+ Here again the historian’s allusion is brief and bare. Galatia lay off 
the line of his European interests; even the great mission at Ephesus 
(190) is dismissed in a sentence, so that the treatment of the Galatian 
mission is not singular. ‘*Can it be that the historian gladly drew a veil 
over the infancy of a church which swerved so soon and so widely from the 
purity of the gospel ?” (Lightfoot, Ga/atzans, p. 21; so Schmiedel, #42. 1607). 


96 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


political titles amid the contending forces that were then causing the develop 
ment of society in Central Asia Minor.” Such a study, he reiterates (cp., 
especially, of. c#t. 318 f.), would prove to these amateurs that the people of 
Antioch, Ikonium, Lystra, etc., could be addressed very aptly as Ga/atians. 
Unluckily, this confident assertion is flatly denied by one whose authority 
upon the subject is based upon years of special study. ‘*In my opinion,” 
says Mommsen (ZVW., 1901, p. 86), ‘‘it is inadmissible to take the 
‘Galatians’ of Paul in anything except the distinct and narrower sense of the 
term. The provinces which were combined with Galatia under a legatus, as, 
e.g., Lykaonia certainly had been under Claudius, were by no means in- 
corporated into that province. Still less could the inhabitants of Ikonium 
and Lystra be named Galatians in the common speech of the day.” Thus it 
remains open to argue that Γαλάται, instead of being specially appropriate to 
the Lykaonians and Phrygians, would have ignored their national character- 
istics (cp. Gheorghiu, of. cét. pp. 49f.). There is no reason, in the term 
itself, to suppose that it denoted any save the inhabitants of Galatia proper, 
and there is not enough historical evidence (cp. Steinmann’s Leserkrets, 
53-60) to show that the S. Galatians were reckoned in the κοινὸν τῶν 
Ταλατῶν. 

(4) While S. Galatia is represented by Gaius and Timotheus,* North 
Galatia, it is contended, is not represented by any delegates in the company 
who met at Troas (Ac 204) to accompany Paul and hand over the collection 
at Jerusalem. But it is more than doubtful if this was the sole object of the 
gathering. Even if it were, there is no representative from Corinth, or Philippi, 
or Achaia. Besides, the Galatian contribution may have been sent inde- 
pendently (so Weber, Addressaten, p. 52). 

(c) Paul’s references to Barnabas do not necessarily imply that he was 
personally known to the readers (who were therefore, it is alleged, in South 
Galatia; cp. Ac 13-14); the apostle speaks of B. also to the Corinthians, 
though he had never visited Corinth; and the allusions to B. in Galatians 
imply no more than the references to Peter (who had not been in 
N. Galatia). 

(d) The phrase, ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς (25), does 
not necessarily imply that the Galatian churches were in existence when the 
controversy at Jerusalem broke out. Paul merely says he was fighting the 
battle on behalf of all Gentile Christians who should believe. He tells the 
Galatians that they belonged to the converts in whose interests he had been 
contending (cp. John 17°). 

(e) It is further argued that Luke devotes far more attention to the South 
Galatian churches, and that Galatians is more likely to have been addressed 
to them than to Christians in an out-of-the-way, unimportant district like 
North Galatia. This is one of the most plausible pleas which are advanced 
by the South Galatian theorists, but it is inconclusive. (i.) Luke, according to 


* This assertion is precarious, however. Timotheus was Paul’s companion 
primarily, and Gaius may be mentioned for the same reason. Besides, as 
Schmiedel acutely points out, ‘‘ it would have been quite irrational to convey 
monies from S. Galatia to Jerusalem by way of Macedonia, and run all the 
risks (2 Co 11%) of such a journey” (Zi. 1612). 


GALATIANS 97 


the North Galatian theory, does mention these churches twice (165 18%) ; so 
do Peter (1 P 1") and Paul himself (1 Co 161), They are more prominent 
than even the Roman church, to which Paul wrote a letter, but of whose 
founding Luke says nothing. Luke is indifferent to Paul’s early and long and 
important mission to Syria and Cilicia ;* he ignores the work in Dalmatia and 
Illyria; and there is not a word of the church at Colossz, to which the 
apostle afterwards wrote a letter.t These, together with the silence upon the 
stormy relations between Paul and the Corinthian church, are sufficient to 
disprove any argument against the North Galatian theory which is drawn 
from the silence of Acts. Luke’s predilections, which led him to ignore 
several Pauline spheres, explain themselves. (ii.) North Galatia was by no 
means inaccessible by road; on the contrary, it was touched by several open 
routes (cp. Ramsay, Ast. Geography of Asia Minor, 237ff.). Ancyra, 
ἡ μετρόπολις τῆς T'adarlas (south as well as north), was connected by roads 
with the surrounding districts ;t while Tavium, as a military station and road- 
centre, was probably (cp. J. Weiss, PRZ. x. 559 f.) linked even with Pisidian 
Antioch, There is no real difficulty, from a geographical standpoint, in 
understanding how Paul could reach N. Galatia; it would not take him over 
any more difficult country than his route from Perga to Antioch over the 
Taurus (Ac 13!4; cp. Ramsay, CRZ. 24f., DB. v. 3915). (iii.) It is time 
that some critics stopped depreciating the condition of N. Galatia. On this 
point it is sufficient to refer to Sir W. M. Ramsay’s own brilliant pages 
(Gal, 128-164) upon the civilisation of the province of Northern Galatia. 
Ancyra was ‘‘one of the greatest and most splendid cities of Asia Minor” 
(Ramsay, Z£xf., 1898, viii. 233; cp. Steinmann’s Leserhrezs, 50f.), and the 
Roman sway had long since permeated the country with civilising influences. 8 


* Sir W. M. Ramsay (C7tzes of St. Paul, 81) concludes from the slight 
and vague allusions to Syria and Cilicia that Luke had no personal know- 
ledge of these regions. Exactly the same inference follows from his scanty 
reference to N. Galatia. On the same page he confesses that ‘* even about the 
Galatian cities he [2.6. Luke] has not very much to relate that is detailed or 
picturesque.” 

+ If it is argued that surely Paul would have written an epistle to such 
important churches as those of Derbe, Lystra, Ikonium, etc., the obvious reply 
is that (i.) extant letters do not represent all that the apostle wrote ; (ii.) that 
no letter was written by him, as far as we know, even to so central a church 
as that of Ephesus. 

1 ‘‘ There were regular roads from either Ikonium or Antioch to Pessinus. 
Moreover, the apostle, who was accustomed to ‘ perils of robbers, perils ot 
rivers, perils in the wilderness’ (2 Co 11°), and who preferred walking from 
Troas to Assos (Ac 201%) while his companions sailed, would not be deterred 
by any rough or unfrequented paths” (Lightfoot, Colossians, 26-27). 

§ Cp. Professor Anwyl in Mansfield College Essays (1909), pp. 158 
(‘Galatia was rapidly penetrated by the civilisation of the Mediterranean 
area”) and 160 (‘‘ whether the epistle to the Galatians was addressed to 
them or not, there is no evidence that in the apostolic age they were 
conspicuously more backward than the inhabitants of other parts of Asia 
Minor”). 


7 


οϑ THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


In any case the Galatians were capable of being converted,* and Paul 
was an evangelist, not a lecturer. The proportion and influence of the 
local Jews exactly correspond to the insignificant position they seem 
to have occupied in the churches, judged by the epistle. Finally, it may 
be pointed out that ‘‘the Galatian cities were in far closer relations with 
the cities of Bithynia-Pontus than of Asia” (Ramsay, Ga/. p. 143); which 
supports the contention that Paul, after his work in N. Galatia, naturally 
thought of Bithynia. Any historical evidence which is available does not 
imply that the civilisation of N. Galatia, during the first century A.D., was 
Romano-Gallic rather than Hellenic; as the inscriptions and coins indicate, the 
Anatolian culture which predominated throughout the province did not exclude 
either the impression of Greek religious ideas or of the Greek language. 
It is therefore beside the mark to dismiss the North Galatian theory on the 
ground that it implies a degree of Greek culture which was foreign to the 
Galatians. Besides, when the evidence of the epistle itself is examined, 
the amount of acquaintance which it presupposes with Greek usages and 
conceptions (¢.g. in 47) does not appear to preclude the possibility of the 
Northern Galatians having been familiar with such elementary Greco-Asiatic 
culture. The Hellenic ideas used in Galatians might have been perfectly 
intelligible to the Galatians of the northern province, so far as any reliable 
evidence is at our command (cp. Burton in 4/7., 1901, 152-153). At any 
rate, Greek was not only the official but the trading language. Unless we 
exaggerate the so-called Hellenism of Paul and the barbarism of Galatia, 
there is no cogent reason why any argument employed in Galatians 
would have been inappropriate to inhabitants of Northern Galatia. It did 
not require any special contact with the Graeco-Roman culture of the age, 
such as is claimed for S. Galatia, in order to understand what Paul wrote 
about slavery, adoption, or wills. This is frankly admitted by Dr. Dawson 
Walker in his essay on ‘‘The Legal Terminology in the Epistle to the 
Galatians” (Gift of Tongues, etc., pp. 127 f.). ‘‘ Whether the Christian 
communities to which the epistle was sent were situated in North or in South 
Galatia, there would be a sufficiently strong Roman environment to make 
such general allusions as St. Paul makes to Roman civil law quite intelligible. 
We therefore conclude that the legal allusions in the epistle are indecisive. 
There is nothing in them that bears so directly on the question of the locality 
of the Galatian Churches as to enable us to say decisively whether the 
epistle was sent to North or to South Galatia” (of. ct. 174 f.). 

(/) Once more, the South Galatian argument that Paul always sought 
out important centres in which to carry on his propaganda is sadly shattered 


* Another phase of this argument is that the N. Galatian churches remain un- 
important in early church history, and that not till the end of the second century 
is there much light upon their existence. But even so, what of the South 
Galatian churches? “ All the more strange,” on account of the marked success 
of the preaching at Antioch (Ac 13 456), ‘‘is the subsequent unimportance of 
the South Galatian churches” (Zz. 184). This is candidly written by Mr. 
Woodhouse, who adheres to the South Galatian hypothesis. The Syriac 
martyrology even points to martyrdoms at Ancyra before the reign of Trajan 
(cp. AZ. xxi. 64f.). 


GALATIANS 99 


by the fact that Derbe and Lystra were quite second-rate cities, with very 
little in common between them and the Roman world. The former ‘‘ was 
one of the rudest of the Pauline cities, education had made no progress in it.” 
Sir W. M. Ramsay even wonders how so rustic and sequestered a spot as 
Lystra came to be visited by Paul. ‘* How did the cosmopolitan Paul drift 
like a piece of timber borne by the current into this quiet backwater?” 
(The Cities of St. Paul, 408). Since he did evangelise such places, we may 
perhaps be spared the argument that North Galatia would have been beneath 
his notice. Even apart from the case of Derbe and Lystra, the common 
assertion that Paul invariably sought out important imperial centres is not 
justified by the evidence. Paul, like Wesley, was an evangelist who 
had a passion for the regions beyond (2 Co 10°56 εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν 
εὐαγγελίσασθαι ; cp. Ro 15!) ; North Galatia lay on the line of his circle 
from Jerusalem, and his procedure elsewhere makes the enterprise in that 
country not simply credible but probable. 

Many internal arguments used on both sides to prove the character of 
the people addressed in the epistle are of little independent value. No stress 
can be laid, ¢.g.,on the so-called Celtic fickleness, in the interests of the 
N. Galatian hypothesis. On the other hand, it is as irrelevant to discover 
anything characteristically 5. Galatian in 615 (so Ramsay, Ast. Comm. Gal. 
454 f.), as if the pitiless temper were specially Phrygian! If any local colour 
is to be sought, the allusion in 6” suggests the custom of marking slaves by 
scars and cuts, which was notoriously a practice of the North Galatians 
(cp. Ramsay, 7st. Comm. Gal. 82f.). The alleged coincidences between 
Galatians (cp. 4*) and Paul’s address in the South Galatian Pisidian Antioch 
(Ac 13}**4) are interesting (cp. of. cz. 399 f.), but they are not confined to 
this address, and represent the primitive Christian outlook rather than Paul’s 
specific views. 

The South Galatian theory has several attractive features, but it lies open 
to objections of more or less cogency. Z£.g., (i.) if the opening of the South 
Galatian mission is so fully described in Ac 13-14, why is there no mention 
of the illness which Paul specially mentions in Gal 413) Again, (ii.) the 
Galatians received Paul ws ἄγγελον θεοῦ, ὡς Χριστὸν 'Inooby (Gal 44), in spite 
of his illness—a very different thing from hailing him in full health as the pagan 
Hermes (Ac 14.2} There is not (iii.) a hint in the epistle of any persecution 
or suffering endured by him in his evangelisation of Galatia, whereas his 
South Galatian mission was stormy in the extreme (Ac 13-14, 2 Ti 3”). 
Once more (iv.), if Paul had evangelised S. Galatia prior to the Council, it 
is not easy to understand why he did not say so in Gal 17. None of these 
objections is satisfactorily met by the S, Galatian theory, in any of its forms. 

On both sides, but especially on the S. Galatian, there is too great a 
tendency to tamper with the text of Acts in order to bring it into line with 
the requirements of a theory. Thus Weber and Ramsay, as well as Lightfoot 
(Brblical Essays, 237 f.), prefer the inferior ν.]. διελθόντες in Ac 168; Blass 
in 16° substitutes the equally inferior διελθόντες for παρελθόντες, and reads, 
on the sole authority of a thirteenth cent. Latin MS, ras Tadarixds χώρας in 
16% ; even Belser is driven (Z27/. 423), like Weber and J. Weiss, to regard 
the reference to I’. x. in the latter verse as corrupt, possibly a harmonising 
gloss from 18%, 


100 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


This opens up the complex problem of the relationship between Galatians 
and the narrative of Acts. (a) As to the various journeys of Paul to Jervsalem, 
neither theory entirely escapes the familiar difficulties; the S. Galatian 
hypothesis, in one or two forms, succeeds in evading them, but only by 
conjectural alterations of the order of the narratives (see below). A more 
important question (4) relates to the Council of Jerusalem. Here the identity 
of Gal 21:19 with Ac 15 must be maintained. In the former passage Paul is 
certainly giving his own version of what Luke subsequently described from 
a later and a different standpoint. The narrative of Acts, whatever be the 
historical value or site of the decree, is the counterpart of Gal 2)" Since 
the object of the two visits in Ac 1127-89 and Gal 2110 is different, and since 
1177-89 can hardly be regarded as a variant account of 15, the only alternative 
is to regard Ac 15 and Gal 2119 as referring to the same incident. This 
hypothesis is not wrecked by the patent difference of motive noticed in the 
two narratives, as there is nothing inconsistent in Paul emphasising the 
inward impulse, under the circumstances, and Luke recalling the joint-action 
of the church. The omission of any reference to Titus or the private 
conference is strange but not unparalleled in Acts, and, on the other hand, 
both narratives agree (and this is fundamental) is making the object of the 
journey a desire to settle the relation of Gentile Christians to the law; both 
imply two conferences, resulting in the recognition of Gentile Christians, 
and the refusal, on the part of the apostles, to sanction the orthodox demand 
tor universal circumcision. Ac 15 certainly presents a modified, and even 
in some respects an unhistorical, account of what had been a very serious 
crisis in the early church. With characteristic tact, Luke passes over the 
friction between Paul and the three pillar-apostles, as well as the difference 
of opinion which yielded but slowly to Paul’s remonstrances; he also 
represents both James and Peter * as in essential harmony with the apostle 
of the Gentiles from the first. This irenical purpose helps to explain Luke’s 
subsequent silence upon the bitter anti-Pauline movement of the Judaisers | 


* For the odd attempt of some Roman Catholic scholars to prove that 
Cephas and Peter are different persons (as Clement of Alexandria was the 
first to suggest), cp. Pesch in the Zeztschrift fiir kath. Theol. (1883) pp. 456- 
490, with Vigoroux, Les Livres Saints et la critique rationaliste, vol. v. 
ΡΡ. 456-476. Another curiosity of ancient interpretation was the view 
popularised by Chrysostom, Jerome, and alleged to go back to Origen, tha: 
the dispute was a got-up scene. The patristic attitude towards the dispute 
is sketched by Overbeck in his Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit dem 
Apostel Petrus bei den Kirchenvitern (Basel, 1877), and Lightfoot (Ga/. pp. 
128-132). 

ft Upon the North Galatian theory, the Judaistic agitation in Galatia 
was a recrudescence of the movement against Gentile Christianity which the 
Council had temporarily checked. The counter-mission was cleverly carried 
into far-off districts where people were less well acquainted with the proceed 
ings at Jerusalem and Antioch, and as adroitly the reactionary party took 
advantage of Paul’s absence to undermine his authority. The burning question 
was circumcision as it had been at Jerusalem. On the 5. Galatian hypothesis, 
this question had arisen prior to the Council, and Paul simply took advantage 


GALATIANS Iol 


and the Corinthian dissensions, as well as upon (c) the dispute between 
Paul and Peter at Antioch. The natural impression made by 2"-'8 {s that 
Peter’s visit to Antioch followed the events narrated in 2!-!, and there is 
no reason, historical or grammatical, to reverse this opinion.* That Peter’s 
inconsistency was only possible before the Council (Weber, Belser, van 
Bebber) is an arbitrary hypothesis, which depends on the erroneous idea 
that the Council’s decree regulated the social intercourse of Jewish and 
Gentile Christians, The reconstruction certainly tends to modify the un- 
favourable impression made by Peter’s vacillating conduct ; but in 2" Paul 
is not harking back, in defence of his apostolic authority, to an episode which 
preceded that of 211, The point of 2" lies in its historical sequence (cp. 
Steinmann’s Adfassungszett, pp. 132 f.; Clemen’s Paulus, i. 41 f.). The 
principle successfully upheld at the negotiations in Jerusalem had to be 
vindicated practically at Antioch soon afterwards. ‘* When we follow Paul’s 
account, the growing excitement with which he unmistakably records the 
event at Antioch is sufficient to prove that, in his view, it was there that the 
crisis was reached” (Weizsicker, 4A. 1. 176). Ina word, Gal 211-16 forms 
the climax, from Paul’s point of view, in his triumphant assertion of the 
free Christian rights belonging to Gentile converts. 

That the Antioch collision took place before Paul left (Ac 15%), and 
not during the visit of Ac 18% (Renan, Neander, Sabatier, Godet), is also 
the natural inference from the narrative ; it is corroborated by the fact that 
after 15° Barnabas was never alongside of Paul, as is implied in Gal 238, 


§ 5. Zhe date.—The division of opinion upon the destina- 
tion has led to an even greater variety of conjectures as to the 
date of the epistle’s composition. On the North Galatian hypo- 
thesis the letter cannot have been written before the period of 
Ac 183; but it may have been composed either (i.) on the way 
from Galatia to Ephesus (Hug, Riickert) ; or (ii.) during Paul’s 
stay at Ephesus (Ac 191-19), perhaps during one of his journeys 
in the vicinity; or (iii.) on his way from Ephesus to Corinth 


of the collection for the Jewish poor to enlist the sympathies and win the 
confidence of the Jewish Christians in the capital. But both implications are 
improbable, especially the second; neither Luke nor Paul says anything 
about this motive, and the use supposed to have been made of the collection 
is the outcome of imagination rather than the reflection of history. 

* As is done by C. H. Turner (DB. i. 423 f.), R. A. Falconer (2 7. 
xi. 487-490), Williams, and Zahn (VXZ., 1894, 435 f.; Gal. 110f.), after 
Calvin, Schneckenburger (Zweck der Apgeschichte, 109 f.), etc., all of whom 
place the Antioch-episode prior to Ac 151, either between Ac 12” and 13} 
or between 145 and 154. Ramsay, who formerly held the latter view (SP7. 
158 f.), now inclines to think that Peter’s visit to Antioch (Gal 211) 
‘*preceded the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas, and that he 
was sent from Jerusalem as far as Syrian Antioch to inspect and report on 
this new extension of the church, just as he had been sent previously to 
Samaria along with John on a similar errand ” (Cities of St. Paul, 302-303). 


{02 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


cp. Moffatt, HWVZ7. 127 f.). There is not much to choose 
between (ii.) and (iii.), but upon the whole the more probable 
hypothesis is that the epistle was written from Ephesus (Ac 19}), 
soon after Paul had left Galatia (Ac 18%’) for the second time; so, 
e.g., Wieseler, Credner, Hofmann, Godet, Alford, Reuss, Meyer, 
H. J. Holtzmann, Lipsius, Sieffert, Schmiedel, Steinmann, 
etc. This was the traditional view as early as Victorinus (‘ epistula 
ad G. missa dicitur ab apostolo ab Epheso’) and earlier; the 
only real alternative is Paul’s stay in Macedonia or Corinth, during 
the period covered by Ac 20! (so especially Lightfoot, after 
Conybeare and Howson, with Bleek, Salmon, von Dobschiitz, etc.). 

One of the charges made against Paul at Thesssalonika was 
that he had left his converts in the lurch. He had to meet this 
insinuation by showing that he had been unable, not unwilling, 
to return. No such calumny is mentioned in Galatians. The 
tone of 420 implies that the Galatians recognised he could net 
visit them in person. Why, we do not know. Galatia was 
accessible from Ephesus, but there may have been reasons why 
he could not leave the latter place at the moment. Otherwise, we 
may suppose he was either on the point of starting for Corinth 
or on his way there, when the news of the Galatian relapse 
reached him. Luke unfortunately has no more to tell us about 
Paul’s relations with the backward Galatze than about Paul’s 
contemporary troubles with the recalcitrant Corinthians. 

The South Galatian hypothesis, upon the other hand, 
permits of a much earlier date. The majority tend to put it first 
of all the extant epistles (cp. Miss E. G. Briggs, Mew World, 
Το; 115 f.; C. W. Emmet, £xf.’ ix. 242f.). Some even 
place it prior to the Council of Jerusalem ; so, e.g., Calvin (on 2? 
“ac ne satis quidem constat, quo tempore scripta fuerit epistola: 
nisi quod Graeci missam Roma diuinant, Latini Epheso. Ego 
autem non tantum scriptam ante fuisse arbitror, quam Paulus 
Romam uidisset, uerum antequam habita fuisset illa consultatio 
vet de ceremoniarum usu pronuntiassent apostoli”) and Beza, 
followed by Ulrich and Bottger. This involved the identification 
of the journey in Ac 11° with that of Gal 2!*,—a view which has 
subsequently found favour with several of the South Galatian 
advocates in their manipulation of the l.ucan narratives 

Galatians occupied the first place in Marcion’s list of the Pauline letters ; 


but, as Thessalonians is put after Romans, it is obvious that Marcion either 
arranged the epistles unchronologically, or had no sure tradition upon their 


GALATIANS 103 


relative position. The former is probably the true solution (cp. Tert. adv. 
Marc. v. 2). Galatians was put in the forefront as Paul’s battle-cry against 
the Judaism which Marcion detested (see above, p. 16). 


Bartlet (0p. cit.) holds that Galatians was written by Paul on 
his way to Jerusalem (Ac 15°; Gal 2110 being identified with a 
visit unknown to Luke, and a second visit being denied in 
Gal 41%). A less complex view is represented by W. A. Shedd 
(ZT. xii. 568) and Douglass Round (Date of St. Pauls Ep. to 
the Galatians, 1906), who identify Gal 2110 with Ac 119, and 
date the epistle from Antioch before Paul went to Jerusalem 
for the Council of Ac 15. This theory, however, does not avoid 
the difficulties encountered by the similar attempt of Weber 
(see above) to place the epistle prior to the Council. These 
difficulties are most ingeniously met by McGéiffert, who, 
identifying Gal 2110 with Ac 11=15 (all referring to the same 
incident), places the composition of Gal. in Antioch prior to 
the second tour of Ac 16%. This involves the interpretation of 
Ac 16? as unhistorical (against this cp. the present writer’s 
article in #2. 5076 and Bacon’s Story of St. Paul, 148f.). But 
it is the very circumcision of Timotheus which lends point to 
the charges underlying Gal 110 and 511, Again, the failure to 
mention Barnabas as the co-founder of the churches is not 
intelligible except after the rupture, and to identify the second 
visit with the mere return journey from Derbe is hardly 
adequate to the impression made by the epistle, which suggests 
that the visit in question was paid to the province as a 
whole, instead of to one or two particular cities and their 
churches. 

Even when the epistle is admitted to be subsequent to the 
Council of Ac 15, there is no agreement on its period. Thus 
Hausrath dates the epistle from Macedonia during the second 
tour, in the autumn of a.D. 53, mainly upon the erroneous ground 
that 481! alludes to the sabbatical year. Albrecht (Paz/ws, 
1903, pp. 114f.) and Clemen (Paw/us, i. 396 f.) choose Athens, 
identifying the of σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί of 12 with Christians 
who had accompanied Paul from Berea! This is supposed to 
explain the absence of Timotheus and Silas from the greeting. 
For similar reasons, many adherents of the S. Galatian hypo- 
thesis come down to the opening period of Paul’s residence 
at Corinth (so, e.g., Mynster, Zahn, Bacon, and Rendall). Bui 
the hyperbole of 1 Th 18:9 does not imply that the news of the 


104 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


Thessalonians’ conversion had reached Galatia; and there is 
not enough time to allow for the exchange of news between 
Paul and that country. Besides, it is rather fanciful to regard 
Galatians as having temporarily checked the Judaising move- 
ment which, after a lull (reflected in Thessalonians), burst out 
again in Corinthians and Romans. Volkmar (of. cit. 37 f.) dates 
Gal. from Antioch at the close of the second tour (Ac 187), while 
Renan and Ramsay ἢ (SP7. 189-192) prefer to date the epistle 
from Syrian Antioch during the period of Ac 1838, prior to the 
third tour,—a theory which has naturally proved a stumbling-block 
to most of those who share the S. Galatian view. It offers no 
satisfactory explanation, e.g., of why Paul omitted any reference 
to his third visit to Jerusalem (Ac 15), still less of Luke’s 
failure to note any interruption (on the second visit to Galatia) 
of the harmony between Paul and the local churches. Further- 
more, the obvious meaning of Gal 439 (ἤθελον δὲ παρεῖναι πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς ἄρτι) is that Paul cannot visit them. There is not the 
slightest indication in the epistle that he was planning a visit 
very soon, and that the messenger who carried the letter took 
news of this to the churches. The same arguments (cp. Round, 
op. cit. 48 f.) tell as heavily against the hypothesis (e.g. Askwith 
and Pfleiderer and D. Walker) that the epistle was written (so 
Jacquier hesitatingly) by Paul from Macedonia or Achaia 
during the third tour. 

These latter variations of the S. Galatian theory really tally, 
so far as the date is concerned, with the N. Galatian hypothesis ; 
and occasionally the same arguments are employed to defend 
them, viz. from the affinities of thought and style between 
Galatians and the other Haxftbriefe. Galatians may be (i.) prior 
to Corinthians; so, especially, Baur (/au/, i. 260f.), Havet, 
les Origines du Christ. iv. 101 f.; Hilgenfeld (Zin/. 249 f.; ZWT,, 
1883, 303-343), Sabatier (Pau/, 137-155), B. Weiss, Godet, 
Renan, H. J. Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Sieffert, Holsten (in Short 
Protest. Comm, Eng. tr. 1883, ii. 254-320), Lipsius, Ramsay 
(SPT. 189 f.), Bovon (V7'T%. ii. 73 f.), Sanday and Headlam 
(“ Romans,” JCC. pp. xxxvi-xxxvii), Warfield (/PZ., 1884, 
50-64), Schafer (Zin/. 87f.), etc. The case for this relative 
order rests rather on a detailed examination of each writing by 


“In his review of Weber (£7. xii. 157-160), however, he says he has 
never felt clear on the point, ‘‘and have ofien doubted ir the last few years 
whether the early date should not after all be preferred.” 


GALATIANS 105 


itself than upon any attempt to trace a dogmatic or controversial 
evolution in Paul’s mind. The ἄλλοις of 1 Co 93 may be an 
allusion to Galatians (cp. 1 Co 91 with Gal 5®8), and Gal 245 
may give us the clue to Am J not free? in 1 Co οἱ; but such 
threads are too slight to bear any weight of conclusions about 
the relative order. As a matter of fact, this process of reasoning 
has led some to exactly the opposite result, viz. that (ii.) 
Galatians is subsequent to 2 Corinthians and next to Romans in 
order. So Hartmann (ZWT., 1899, 187-194), arguing from 
2 Co 12? and Gal 2!, but especially Bleek, Howson, Credner, 
Salmon (Smith’s DB.? i. rro8f.), and Lightfoot (pp. 36-56), 
followed by Farrar, 5. Davidson (7.777: i. 73-83), W. Briickner 
(Chron. 174f.), Hort, Findlay, M. W. Jacobus (A Problem 
in Criticism, 1900, pp. 113f.), Resch (Pawlinismus, 475 f., very 
emphatically), Askwith (chs. vii.—viii.), Adeney, and Williams. 
The argument is that the net resemblances of thought 
and language imply a grouping of Galatians and Romans 
close together; that the Judaism combated in 2 Cor. is less 
matured than in Galatians ; and so forth. But there is no reason 
to suppose that the Judaistic agitation developed uniformly. 
Such reasoning assumes erroneously “that the Judaising heresy 
had reached at the same point of time the same stage of de- 
velopment everywhere. So soon as we remember that some of 
these epistles were written to enlightened Corinth and others to 
barbarous Galatia, all these nice arrangements are seen to be 
the growth of misunderstanding” (Warfield, 7BZ., 1884, p. 52). 
The similarity of attitude in Gal. and Rom. yields no safe 
inference as to their period of composition. The latter epistle 
carries forward the conceptions outlined in the former, after a 
brief lapse of time, during which other and more pressing 
questions (6.9. 1 and 2 Cor.) had engrossed the writer’s mind. 
The comparative absence of doctrinal controversy (in 2 Cor.) 
with the Judaistic emissaries proves, not that the conflict with 
them was still in some inchoate stage which is reflected in 
Gal., but simply that the particular conditions at Corinth 
demanded’ special treatment. The exposure of these agitators 
in 2 Cor. is not inconsistent with a previous refutation of 
their principles such as is flung out in Galatians. See further 
on this point, Rendall (Zxf.4 ix. 260), C. H. Turner (DF 
i. 423), Zahn (ZNVT. i. pp. 200-201), Peake (JIV7: pp. 27f.), 
and especially Sieffert’s essay in 77.521, (332-357). W.S. Wood 


106 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


(Studies in Gal. pp. 2 f.) specially controverts Lightfoot, in the 
interests of a date at least synchronous with Thessalonians. 

It is important to avoid this ultra-logical and literary 
method* of treating Paul’s correspondence,—as if he could not 
return to any given topic from a later standpoint,—since it is 
often used not only (a) to support @ priori views of their dates, 
but also (4) to discredit their authenticity. 


(a) One instance of the former error is presented by the patristic tradition 
(Eusebius of Emesa, Jerome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, etc.), reflected in the 
subscription of one or two later uncials (ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης), and prevalent 
in some circles of the Eastern church, which has occasionally been revived by 
critics (e.g. Schrader, der Apostel Paulus, 1830, i. 216f. ; Kohler, Versuch tiber 
die Abfassungszett der epistolischen Schriften im NT, 1830, pp. 125f.; Halmel, 
Rom. Recht im Galaterbrief, 1895, pp. 30f., and R. Scott), who actually 
place Galatians in the Roman imprisonment. The reasons alleged for this 
curious date are quite unconvincing. The argument led from its affinities 
with Romans has been already met (cp. pp. 104f.). The notion (Halmel) that 
it implies a knowledge of Roman law which involves a residence in Italy 
is out of the question: Paul was a Roman citizen himself, and any such 
acquaintance with Roman legal procedure as the epistle may be held to 
presuppose was quite possible throughout a province like Galatia (see above, 
pp. 97-98). Finally, the fancied allusions to imprisonment evaporate under 
examination. Had Paul been in prison, he would have referred plainly to it, 
εἰ δ. at 4” (cp. Ph 17 4) ete.). 

It is no improvement on this theory to place the epistle during Paul’s last 
voyage to Palestine (perhaps at Troas, Ac 20°; so Mill, WZ Prolegomena, 4), 
on the ground that 2” refers to the collection (Ro 15), or (so Κύμη, VXZ., 
1895, 156f., 981f.) in the Cesarean imprisonment, when Paul could not get 
away (471) to revisit his friends, and when he had been maltreated by the 
Tews (6'7= Ac 2133). 


8 6. Authenticity—lIt is this relationship to Romans which 
also (4) started the theories of Galatians as a second-century pro- 
duct (see below, under “‘ Romans”), composed upon the basis of 
Romans and Corinthians, in order either to oppose the milder 
conception of Paul in Acts, or to promulgate a broader form of 
Christianity, or to emphasise the rupture between Judaism and 
Christianity. The ablest statement of the theory was R. Steck’s 
der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht, nebst kritischen 
Bemerkungen 2u den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (Berlin, 1888), 
written in a phase of reaction against the Tiibingen identification 
of the four Haupétbriefe with the genuine Paul. J. Friedrich’s 

* Thus, in his essay on Die Ursprunglichkeit des Galaterbriefes (Leipzig, 


1903), Hermann Schulze tries to prove the filiation of the later NT literature 
‘o Galatians, in a way which lands him in repeated exaggerations. 


GALATIANS 107 


die Unaechtheit des Galaterbriefs (Halle, 1891) is less original. 
The hypothesis is no longer anything but a curiosity of criticism, 
like Pere Jean Hardouin’s relegation of most of the classics to 
the fourteenth century, and Edwin Johnson’s discovery that the 
primitive Christian literature was forged in the Renaissance and 
Reformation periods (Antigua Mater, London, 1887). All that 
requires to be said against such vagaries has been put by 
Schmiedel (ZC., 1888, 1697f.; 4281. 1617-1623), Kappeler 
(Z. Schw., 1889, 11-19), Sieffert (οὐ. cit. pp. 26f.), Lindemann 
(die Aechtreit der paulinischen Hauptbriefe, 1889), Gloél (die 
jiingste Kritik des Galaterbriefs auf thre Berechtigung gepriift, 
1890), C. H. van Rhijn (Zheol. Studién, 1890, 363f.). 
Wohlenberg (VXZ., 1893, 741f.), Zahn (Zznl. § 9), R. J. 
Knowling (Witness of the Epistles, 133f., and Testimony of St. 
Paul to Christ, 1905, 34 f.), and Clemen (Paulus, i. 18 f.). 


(a) No weight or worth attaches to the attempts made to disentangle a 
Pauline nucleus from later editorial accretions, as, ¢.g., by Cramer, who 
detects unauthentic interpolations all through (e.g. 17 24 etc.), but notably 
in 3160. 26-29 424-27 55-6 61-6. 9-10 Even Volter, who applies this method to 
the other Pauline epistles, recognises that Galatians is practically a literary 
unity, although that does not prevent him from relegating it to a post-Pauline 
date (Paulus τι. seine Briefe, pp. 229-285). Van Manen’s attempt (77., 
1887, 400f., 456f.) to prove that Marcion’s text was more original than the 
canonical, is answered at length by Baljon (of. cz¢, pp. I-101) and Clemen 
(Einhettlichkett d. Paul. Briefe, 1894, 100f.). 

(4) The earliest reference to Galatians by name, is the notice of its 
inclusion in Marcion’s Afostolicon ; but almost verbal echoes of 319-13 occur in 
Justin’s Dial. xciv.—xcv. (as of 45 in Athenag. Zeg. 16, and of 4” in Diogn. 
10) and Orat. 5 (of Gal 413), and the epistle was almost certainly known to 
Polykarp, as the quotations in 5! (from Gal 67) εἰδότες οὖν ὅτι Θεὸς οὐ μυκτη- 
plferat and 3° (from Gal 438) πίστιν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν, and the 
allusions in 3° (Gal 514), 5° (Gal 517), 9? (Gal 22) prove. Apart from Phz/. 13 
(οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπων =Gal 1), the traces of the epistle in Ignatius 
(271= Trall. τοὶ, 5'= £ph. 18}, 5°73= Eph. 16!, 64= Ro 73) are faint, as is also 
the case with Clem. Rom. (2'=Gal 3}, 5?=2°). As the second century 
advances, the evidence of the epistle’s popularity multiplies on all sides, from 
Ptolemzus and the Ophites to Irenzus and the Muratorian Canon (cp. 
Gregory. 7ext and Canon of NT, 201-203). 

The inferiority of its early attestation, as compared, ¢.g., with that of 
1 Cor. or of Rom., may be due to the remote situation of the churches in 
which it was originally circulated (7.6. on the North Galatian hypothesis), 
or to its polemical tone. Celsus observed that Christians, despite their 
shameful quarrels and divisions, could all be heard saying, ‘The world is 
crucified to me, and I to the world.’ Origen (¢. Ce/s. v. 64) declares this 
is the only sentence which Celsus ever quoted from Paul (Gal 618). 


£08 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


(C) PAUL’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH CORINTH. 


LITERATURE.!—(a) Editions :—Cajetan (Venice, 1531) ; Morton (1596) ; 
Cornelius ἃ Lapide (1614); Crellius (1635); Lightfoot (1664); Grotius 
(1644); Semler’s Paraphrasts (1770-6); Morus (1794); J. G. F. Billroth 
(1833, Eng. tr. by W. L. Alexander, 1837-8); Riickert (Leipzig, 1836-7) ; 
de Wette (1841); Peile (London, 1848); Olshausen? (1840, Eng. tr. 1851); 
J. H. Thom (1851); Hodge (1857-60); A. Maier (1857); Neander 
(Ausleg. d. beiden Briefe, ed. Beyschlag, 1859); Burger (1859-60) ; Kling 
(1861, Eng. tr. 1866); C. Wordsworth* (1866); Hofmann? (1874-7); 
Braune® (1876); Meyer® (1870, Eng. tr. 1877); Stanley® (1882); Bisping 
(1883); Beet * (1885); Ellicott (1887); Schnedermann (in Strack u. Zockler, 
1887); W. Kay (1887); Gobel (1887) ; Schmiedel? (WC. 1892)*; Cornely 
(Paris, 1892); J. Drummond (/ztern. Hdbks. NT, 1899); Ceulemans 
(1901); Couard? (1901); B. Weiss? (1902); A. Schiifer (1903); Massie 
(CB. n. d.); Bousset? (SMV7Z. 1907); Gutjahr (1907); A. Schlatter (1907) ; 
J. Niglutsch? (Brevzs Commentarius, 1907) ; Lietzmann (HSNV7. 1907). 

Of 1 Cor. alone:—D. Pareus (Heidelberg, 1621); Krause (1792) ; 
Heydenreich (Marburg, 1825-7) ; Osiander (1849); A. Maier (1857); Evans 
(Speaker's Comm. 1881)*; Heinrici* (1880); T. C. Edwards (London, 
1885)"; Ellicott (1887); Godet * (1887, Eng. tr.); Farrar? (P2lpzt Comm. 
1888) ; Siedenpfennig (1893); Lias (( 7. 1895); Lightfoot (Motes on Epp. 
of St. Paul, 1895; on 11-7*); Heinrici (— Meyer’, 1896); G. G. Findlay, 
(ZGT,. 1901) ἢ; Goudge (WC. 1903); Bachmann (ZX. 1905)*; J. Weiss 
(— Meyer ®, 1910). 

Of 2 Cor. alone :—Mosheim (Zrklirung des zwetten Briefe des heiligen 
apostels Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Cor. 1762); J. G. F. Leun (1804) ; 
Emmerling (1823); Scharling (1840); Osiander (1858); Klépper* (1874) ; 
Waite (Speaker’s Comm. 1881); Farrar (Pulpzt Comm. 1883); Heinrici * 
(1887); Heinrici (— Meyer®, 1900); Plummer (CG7. 1903); J. H. Bernard 
(ZGT. 1903)*; F. Langheinrich? (1905); R. Cornely (Comm. in S. Pauli 
cpp. ad Cor. alteram et Galatas, Paris, 1907) ; Bachmann (Ζ Α΄. 1909) *. 

(6) Studies :—(i.) of 1 Cor. alone—Petrus Martyr. (Commentart?, ed. 
1551); Gibaud’s Zutrod. a la premiere épitre aux Cor. (These de Strasb. 
1835); Straatman’s A7rztische studien over den 1 Kor, (1863); Holsten, 
Evangelium des Paulus, i. (1880); M. Dods (Fxfos. Bridle, 1889); G 
Wahle (VXZ., 1898, 540f., 605f.); C. H. van Rhijn, “πεῖ opschrift van 
der eersten Brief aan de K.” (Zheol. Stud., 1900, 357f.); E. Kuhl, 
Erlaut. Umschretbung, etc., 1905). (11.) of 2 Cor. alone. —T. Heshusius 
(Zxplicatio, 1572); H. Royaards, Disputatio inauguralis de altera P. ad C. 
epistola (1818); Κα. F. A. Fritzsche, de monnullis postertorts Pauli ad 
Corinthios Epistole locts dissertationes due (1824); M. Wirth, Altes und 
neues tiber αἰ. zweiten Brief an die Korinth. (1825); Roux, Analyse de la 
deux. épitre aux Cor. (1836); Klopper, Exegetische-hritische Unters. tiber 
den zweiten Brief des Paulus an die Gemetnde zu Korinth (1869) * 
iain 1 | ae Bible, 1894)"; G. Barde, Paul Papétre, études sur la a 


i For the ancient aid medieval literature, from Chrysostom to Schein 
see T. C. Edwards’ edition, pp. xxvi-xxxii. 


CORINTHIANS 109 


épttre aux C. (1006). (iii.) of 2 Cor. favourable to intermediate Letter 
hypothesis (see further below, p. 121); Hausrath, der Vier-Capitel Brief des 
Paulus an dite Corinthier (1870); Hagge (/P7., 1876, pp. 481-531); 
Volter (77., 1889, pp. 294-325); Briickner (Chron. 177-180); Konig 
(ZWT., 1897, pp. 482-554); J. H. Kennedy (Zxg.5, 1897, pp. 231f., 285 f., 
1899, pp. 182f.; Zhe Second and Third Letters of St. Paul to the 
Corinthians*, 1900; and Hermathena, 1903, 340-367); R. Mackintosh 
(Exp.7 vi. 77f., 226f., 336f.); G. H. Rendall, 716 Epistles of St. Paul to the 
Corinthians (1909). Unfavourable: Gabler, De capp. ult. tx.-xiit. posterioris 
epist. P. ad Cor, ab eadem haud separandis (Gottingen, 1782; reply to Semler); 
Hilgenfeld (ZWT7., 1899, pp. I-19); N. J. Ὁ. White (Axg.° vii. 113f. ; 
reply to Kennedy; so Hermathena, 1903, pp. 79-89). (iv.) of both epp.— 
α. T. Zachariae’s Erklarung (1769); J. F. Flatt’s Vorlesungen (1827); Le 
Fort, Rapports de S. Paul avec Péglise de Corinth (1836); Schenkel, 
dissertatio de eccies. Corinthi primaeva factiontbus turbata (Basel, 1838) ; 
J. G. Miiller, de trébus P. ttineribus Corinthum susceptis de epistolisque ad 
eosdem non deperditis (Basel, 1831); Eylau, zx Chronologie der Kor.-Briefe, 
(1873); Rabiger, Avztésche Untersuchungen tiber d. Inhalt d. beiden Briefe 
d. Apostels P. an die Kor. Gemeinde* (1886)*; A. Sabatier’s Paul (Eng. tr.) 
156-184; Krenkel’s Bectrige zur Aufhellung der Geschichte u. der Briefe des 
Paulus (1890); van Manen, De drieven aan de Korinthiers (1896); 
Sanday (2.81. 899-907); A. Robertson (DB. i. 483-498); W. Schmidt, 
(PRE. xi. 369f.) ; Jacquier (Vigoroux’ DB. ii. 983-1005) ; Rohr, Pazlus 2. 
die Gemeinde von Korinth auf Grund d. beiden Korintherbriefe (Freiburg, 
1899); Ermoni (R&., 1899, 283-289); Holsten (ZWT., 1901, pp. 324- 
369); W. M. Ramsay (£xf.® i.-iii., ‘historical commentary’)*; G. 
Hollmann, Urchristenthum tm Corinth (1903); Clemen’s Pazlus (1904), i. 
pp. 49-85; von Dobschiitz, (/re. pp. 11f.; C. Munzinger, Paulus in 
Korinth. neue Wege zum WVerstindniss d. Urchristenthum (1907)*; W. 
Liitgert, Prechettspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth (BFT, xii. 3, 1908); 
R. Scott, Zhe Pauline Epistles (1909), 61-95. 


§ 1. Outline of the correspondence.—Paul’s correspondence 
with the Christians of Corinth, so far as traces of it are extant, 
included four letters from him. (a) The earliest (1 Co 5° ἔγραψα 
ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις κτλ.) has not 
been preserved, unless, as is very probable, 2 Co 6147! is one 
fragment of it. This letter must have been written after Ac 1818 
and prior to (4) 1 Cor., which was sent (possibly by Titus among 
others; cp. Lightfoot’s Lzblical Essays, 281 f.) from Ephesus 
(16°*- 19), during the period of Ac 19!-20!, in reply to a com- 
munication, conveyed perhaps} by Stephanus, Fortunatus, and 
Achaicus (1 Co 1617-18), from the Corinthian Christians them- 
selves (1 Co 7! περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε). The subsequent visit 
referred to in 41921 (ἐλεύσομαι δὲ ταχέως πρὸς ὑμᾶς... ἐν ῥάβδῳ 

~1 Not necessarily, however. These men may have come independently 
{cp. Lemme in Neue Jahré. fiir deutsche Theologie, 1895, 113f.). 


110 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


ἔλθω; cp. 118 167) was probably paid; at least this is a fair 
inference from the language of 2 Co 2! 121} (ἰδοῦ τρίτον τοῦτο 
ἑτοιμῶς ἔχω ἐλθεῖν, cp. 131). After this brief, disciplinary visit 
he returned to Ephesus, saddened and baffled (2 Co 255). But 
what he had been unable (2 Co 10! 12%!) to effect personally, 
he tried to carry out by means of (c) a letter (24 78) written ἐκ 
πολλῆς θλίψεως καὶ συνοχῆς καρδίας διὰ πολλῶν δακρύων, and 
preserved in part in 2 Co rol-131°, It was evidently carried by 
Titus (2 Co 218 76 1814), Finally, in a fourth letter (d), written 
from Macedonia shortly after he had left Ephesus to meet Titus 
on his return journey from Corinth, Paul (2 Co 1-9) rejoices 
over the good news which his envoy had brought, and seeks to 
bury the whole controversy. Titus and two other brothers 
(2 Co 81628) carry this irenicon to Corinth, and Paul promises 
to follow before long (2 Co 94, cp. Ac 207). 


The scantiness of the data upon the visits, not only of Paul but of Titus and 
Timotheus to Corinth, renders it almost impossible to reconstruct any scheme 
of events which is not more or less hypothetical at various points. For the 
movements of Titus and Timotheus, see Lightfoot’s Bzs/ical Essays, 273 f. ; 
Schmiedel, 82 f., 267-269; A. Robertson (DB. i. 492-497), Rendall (41-42), 
the articles on both men in Hastings’ D&. (Lock) and Z4z. (the present 
writer), and Kennedy (of. εἶζ. pp. 69-77, 115f.). That Titus had at least 
two missions to Corinth is more than probable. Much depends on whether 
he is made the bearer of 1 Co and 2 Co 10-13, and whether the mission of 
2 Co 12}8 is identified with the former visit. 

The precise dates of the various letters vary with the chronological schemes 
(see above, pp. 62-63); all that can be fixed, with any approximate accuracy, is 
their relative order. Sabatier’s scheme (which is substantially that of Clemen) 
is—the letter of 1 Co 59=end of 55; 1 Co=spring of 56; intermediate visit 
=autumn of 56; intermediate letter=spring of 57; 2 Co=autumn of 57. 
Zahn’s arrangement is—the letter of 1 Co 5°=end of 56 (or begin. of 57) ; 
1 Co=spring of 57 ; 2 Co=(Nov. Dec.) 57. Most (e.g. Baur, Renan, Weiss, 
Lightfoot, Plummer, Barth, Farrar) still put both forward into A.D. 57-58 
(Alford=57). Others, however, throw them back into 54-55 (Rendall) or 
even 54 (Bacon), Harnack into 53 (52), and McGiffert into 51-52. As for 
1 Co, T. C. Edwards chooses the spring of 57 ; Bachmann (cp. his discussion 
of the date, pp. 480f.), like Findlay, among recent editors, the spring of 56 (so 
Jiilicher, Belser, Ramsay) ; Goudge=the spring of 55 (so C. H. Turner, DZ. 
i. 424); Ramsay=autumn (October) of 55. The allusions to Apollos (1 Co 
16) show that 1 Co was not written till after the period of Ac 19'*, and the 
remark of 1 Co 168 serves as a further éerminus ad quem for the composition of 
the letter within whatever year is selected. 


§ 2. The unrecorded letter—Our canonical First Corinthians 
was not the first written communication which passed between 
Paul and the church of Corinth. In it he alludes (5%) to a 


FIRST CORINTHIANS 11] 


previous letter in which, among other things* perhaps, he had 
charged them to withdraw from social intercourse with openly 
immoral members of the church—a counsel which they had 
misinterpreted. When and why this letter was written, remains 
a matter for conjecture. Evidently it soon perished, for 
Clement of Rome (xlvii. 1) knows nothing of it. 


In 5° ἔγραψα, as the context shows, cannot be the epistolary aorist (as in 
9). To delete ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, as Blass proposes (BFT7. x. 1. 60f.), in order 
to avoid the necessity of assuming that a Pauline letter was lost, is justified 
neither by considerations of rhythm nor by the apparent absence of the words 
from the text of Chrysostom. Had an editor wished to emphasise the fact 
that Paul was alluding to the present letter, he would have written ἐν ταύτῃ 
τῇ ἐπιστολῇ. The use of the plural in 2 Co 101! at least corroborates the 
inference from 1 Co 5° that the canonical First Corinthians was not the only 
letter which had been sent from Paul to the local church, and the context of 
the latter passage indicates that the unrecorded letter would fairly be reckoned 
among the βαρεῖαι καὶ ἰσχυραὶ ἐπιστολαί. 


§ 3. Zhe first (canonical) epistle—The construction of 1 Co is 
simple and its course is straightforward. The Corinthian or 
rather the Achaian Christians were confronted with a series of 
problems, arising mainly from their social and civic relationships, 
which were forced upon them as they realised that Christianity 
meant not a mere ethical reform, but an absolutely new principle 
and standard of morality. These problems Paul discusses 
seriatim. The question of the cliques is first taken up (11° 
471), because it formed the most recent news received by the 
writer. After handling this ecclesiastical abuse, he passes to a 
question of incest (51:13), and thence f to the problem of litiga- 
tion between Christians in pagan courts (6!-®-), finally 7 turning 
back to the topic of fornication (61070), He then (71 πρὶ δὲ ὧν 
ἐγράψατε) takes up the various points on which the Corinthians 
had consulted him in their letter, one after another: marriage 
and its problems (περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων, 735), including celibacy 
(72-49), the wisdom or legitimacy of using foods offered to idols 
(περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, 81-111), and public worship and its 
problems—including rules for women (11716), the administration 


* An announcement of his next visit? A word on the collection (161) ἢ 

+ The transition is mediated partly by the double sense of judge in 5% 12-18, 
partly by the fact that the remarks about the outside world (5!) would 
naturally suggest another and a cognate aspect of the subject. 

t The plea of the Corinthians quoted in 6” (a// things are lawful for me} 
carries forward Paul’s warning against ethical sophistry in 6° (Be not dececved) 


[12 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


of the Lord’s Supper (1117-*4), and the spiritual gifts (περὶ δὲ τῶν 
πνευματικῶν, 121-14), Finally, in reply to some Christians 
whose Hellenic prejudices cast doubt upon the possibility of a 
bodily resurrection for the dead saints, Paul argues* that such 
a rejection of the resurrection of the dead implied the rejection 
of that historical resurrection of Christ (1521), which not only 
is the source and staple of the apostolic preaching, but also 
(150-8) the pivot of the Christian eschatological hope, and the 
only explanation of contemporary Christian conduct (15294), 
He then gives a positive account of the resurrection body 
(1585-57). A brief paragraph follows on the collection for the 
poor saints of Jerusalem (περὶ δὲ τῆς Aoyias, 161-4), after which 
the letter closes (165-4), as it had opened (11:9), with personal 
details (περὶ δὲ ᾿Απολλώ, 1612) and injunctions. 


(z) The contents of the epistle present several problems of historical and 
theological importance, viz., the parties in the local church, the man and his 
ward or daughter (7**-88), the narrative of the Lord’s Supper, the glossolalia, 
and the argument upon the resurrection.t But comparatively few problems 
of literary criticism are started. Occasionally the reader can detect echoes 
of what the Corinthians had written in their letter. Thus Paul takes up now 
and then phrases of theirs as a text or pivot for what he has to say; e.g. 
πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν (6°), τὰ βρώματα τῇ κοιλίᾳ καὶ ἡ κοιλία τοῖς βρώμασιν (63%), 
πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν (81), οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ, οὐδεὶς θεὸς ἕτερος εἰ μὴ εἷς 
(84), πάντα ἔξεστιν (1033), ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν (1513, cp. 1535). Further 
attempts to reconstruct this letter are made by Lewin (.52. Paz/, i. 386), Lock 
(Exp.° vi. 127 f.), Findlay (Zx.° i. gor f.), and P. Ewald (Meue Jahrb. f. 
deutsche Theologte, 1894, 194-205). 

(ὁ) The language of 418 (ws περικαθάρματα τοῦ κόσμου ἐγενήθημεν, πάντων 
περίψημα) is drawn from the rites of the Thargelia (cp. Usener in SBA ΚΣ. 
cexxxvii. 139 f.), in which only the off-scourings of humanity played the réle of 
victims, and 5" (τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν) recalls the well-known saying of 
the Ahikar-cycle, 77» son, do not even eat bread with a shameless man (cp. Ep. 
Aristeas, 142). If οἷον is a citation, it may be from the same source as 2° 
(see above, p. 31). The use of written evangelic sources has been con- 
jectured in 11% (e.g. by Resch, Agrapha, 105 f., 178 f.; TU. x. 3. 627-638), 
and in 15%? (e.g. by Brandt, Evang. Geschichte, 414 f.); and one or two 
(7ZZ., 1900, 661) Philonic echoes are heard, ¢.g., in 3? (cp. Philo, 


-." ----- See 


*Cp. van Veen, Exegetisch-kritisch onderzoek naar 1 Co 151! (1870). 
It is possible, though there is no trace of it in the context, that ch. 15 was 
occasioned by news of some local difficulties and doubts at Corinth. The 
connection of 16! with 14% is logically close, but letters are not written by 
logic, and there is no reason to suspect that 15 was subsequently inserted. 

+ The Christians at Corinth and in Achaia, unlike those at Thessalonika, 
were free {rom persecution at this period ; their troubles were internal. 


FIRST CORINTHIANS 113 


de agricult. 9, etc.), 3!° (cp. also Epict. ii. 15. 8-9),* 84 15% 142 (=ae 
gecalogo, 105), and the exegetical principle in 9% (cp. Philo, de spec. leg. 
wept θυόντων 1, ov γὰρ ὑπὲρ ἀλόγων ὁ νόμος ἀλλὰ τῶν θυόντων). 


§ 4. Lts εἰγμοίμ7ε.--- ΤΠ 6. evenness of style and the genuine 
epistolary stamp of the letter are so well marked that, in spite of 
Kabisch’s hesitation (die Eschatologie des Paulus, pp. 31 f.), its 
unity hardly requires detailed proof. The most drastic hypo 
theses to the contrary have been furnished by Hagge and 
Volter (Paulus u. seine Briefe, pp. 1-73, 100-134, superseding 
his earlier essays). The former distinguishes three epistles: A, 
in 118 71234 71-818 οἿθ 111 2-14 1619 416-20 1610-21. 34. Be in 
15. 210. 2 Co 1o-11* γ. (0 15. 2 Coz τ Ὁ 01, 2 Co 
τ 12 ι1 Co.5-6, 2 (Ὁ 13!-!0 (Ὁ τόν, and. €, in 2 Co a—7. 
g. 13}118. while 2 Co 8 is taken as a separate note written by 
some non-Macedonian church along with Paul. 

Volter’s analysis distinguishes an original epistle in 1-25 31-9 16-23 41-16. 
18-21 τος 6-13 7 pte 8-24 81-5a. 6a. 7-13 Ou 19-20a 1073-83 111" 17-22. 29-34 12!-12. 14-31 
Ate 37-40 ts 8-22, 29-81. 820-44. 46-50. 53-55. 57-58 16, to which a later editor + has 
added sections containing more developed ideas of the person of Christ, the 
sacraments, justification, and so forth. Pierson and Naber, as usual, discover 
numerous fragments of Jewish and of second-century Christian origin ( Ver7- 
similia, pp. 50 f.), for which the curious may consult their pages and those 


of Lisco (Paulus Antipaulinus, Ein Beitrag eur Auslegung d. ersten vier 
Kap. d. 1 Korintherbriefes, 1894). 


Such wholesale theories hardly merit even a bare chronicle, 
but it is a legitimate t hypothesis that small passages here and 
there may have been interpolated, creeping in from their position 
as marginal glosses, or being inserted by editors to smooth out 
or supplement the text. Such, ¢.g., are: 


ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ (1132, so Bruins and Heinrici ; Rhijn conjectures Κρίσπου 1), 
9,5 (Schmiedel, pp. 145-146), 14°85 @6 (Straatman, pp. 134-138; 
Holsten, das Evang. Paul. i. 495 f.; Schmiedel, Hilgenfeld, Michelsen, 


* Among other striking parallels with Epictetus, cp. 613: ἵν. 1 (one of the 
-fequent Stoical touches in Paul), 7% =iii. 22, 14% =iii. 23 (οὕτω mpd ὀφθαλμῶν 
ἐτίθει τὰ ἑκάστου κακά), 15% =iii. 24. 93. 

+ Or editors; for 10” and 11%-* seem to Vélter to represent divergent 
views of the Jord’s Supper, as do 318 and 15% εἰς, of eschatology (pp. 
131 f.). 

Φ Findlay (G7. i. p. 754) admits this as an ‘abstract possibility,’ 
though he finds none of the instances proven. For the latter, see Bruins 
(77., 1892, pp. 381 f., 471 f.}. R. Scott detects in 195+ 1613-8 316-17 ang 
15° interpolations probably by Silas, the general editor of the whole corre- 
spondence. 


8 


ΣΙ4 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


Pfleiderer: Ure. i. 119 n., Baljon, Moffatt: HNV7. pp. 170, 627-628; Heinrici 
and Bousset: pp. 123-124=vv.*4%),* and the exegetical gloss in 15% 
(Straatman, Volter, Schmiedel, von Soden: 7ZZ., 1895, 129; Heinrici, 
Drummond, Moffatt, J. Weiss, Beztrage zur paul. Rhetortk, 170; M. Dibelius, 
die Getsterwelt tm Glauben des Paulus, 1909, 116-117). 

Much less probable is the excision of 1** (see above, p. 19) as an editorial 
addition, of 17 as a gloss (Michelsen: refuted by Baljon, of. czt. pp. 40 f.), 
or 16 (Holsten, das Evang. Paul. i. 461; Volter, 2), or 31°! (Bruins, 
TT., 1892, 407 f. ; Volter), or 316 (Michelsen ; but see Baljon, pp. 48-49), or 
717-23 (Straatman, Baljon), or 11'° (Straatman, Holsten, Baljon), or 1133. 
(Straatman, pp. 38 f. ; Bruins, p. 399; Vélter, pp. 41 f.), or 121°! (Straatman, 
pp. 87 f. ; Volter, p. 55), or 15°*- (Michelsen, 7'7., 1877, pp. 215 f. ; Bruins, 
pp. 391 f.; Volter, pp. 64 f. ; but cp. Baljon, pp. 109 f., and Schmiedel, pp. 
195 f.), or 15° (Volter), or 15% (Straatm., Volter), or 16 (a Jewish Christian 
gloss: Bruins; Rovers, /NV7. p. 37; Baljon, pp. 134 f. ; Holsten)—to name 
only some of the suspected texts. or the various conjectures of a marginal 
gloss in 4°, see Clemen’s Zzfeit. p. 30; Baljon, pp. 49-51; van Manen’s 
Paul, iii. 188-189, and Heinrici’s note; the fairest verdict is Clemen’s ‘‘ es 
bleibt also nur iibrig, hier ahnlich wie 2° ein Apokryphon angefiihrt zu sehen, 
wodurch sich vielleicht auch die Unebenheit in der Konstruction erklart.” +t 
The transposition of 1453: 35 to a place after 14% (so DE FG, 93, de fg, 
etc.) is plausible, that of 717-4 to between 7“ and 8! (Beza) is unconvincing. 
In the latter case,t while 7!® and 7* connect well, the εἰ μή of 7} does not 
follow 7 with anything like smoothness; its present position is on the 
whole as likely to have been original as any other,—a verdict which applies 
also to 16 (transferred by Hagge to a position after 2 Co 13). 


§ 5. Zts attestation.—First Corinthians has strong and early 
attestation (cp. Knowling’s Zestimony of St. Paul to Christ, 51 f.) 
in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polykarp, to all of whom it 
appears to have been familiar. The figure of the body and its 
members (1212 14 21) emerges in Clem. Rom. xxxvii 5, while the 
language and ideas of 1307 reappear in xlvi. 5 (ἀγάπη πάντα 
ἀνέχεται, πάντα μακροθυμεῖ κτλ.) : ὃ but as the epistle is actually 
referred to (11118) in xlvii. 1 (ἀναλάβετε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τοῦ μακαρίου 
Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου. τὶ πρῶτον ὑμῖν ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔγραψεν; 
ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείας πνευματικῶς ἐπέστειλεν ὑμῖν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ τε καὶ Κηφᾶ τε 

* Zscharnack, der Dienst der Frau in d. ersten Jahrh. der Christi. 
Airche, 1902, 70 f, 

+ Lietzmann’s reason for rejecting any hypothesis of interpolation here 
(‘* Voll verstehen k6nnen wir die Stelle nicht, eben weil wir einen Privatbrief 
intimster Art vor uns haben ”’) is untrue to the character of 1 Co. 

t While this passage cannot (as, ¢.g., by Straatman and Baljon) be assigned 
to the second century, it may, like 14®*, belong to the pre-canonical epistle to 
the Corinthians. 


§ On the freedom with which Clement really paraphrases Paul, cp. West 
cott’s Canon of the NT. pp. 49-50. 


FIRST CORINTHIANS 110 


καὶ ᾿Απολλώ, διὰ τὸ καὶ τότε προσκλίσεις ὑμᾶς πεποιῆσθαι), it is 
needless to do more than note the repeated echoes in xxiv. 1 
(1570-23), xxiv. 4-5 (15°°87), xxxvii. 3 (157%), xxxviii. 2 (1617), xlvi. 7 
(615), and xlviii. 5 (1289). The use of the epistle by Ignatius 
is even more distinct and copious ; 4... 21°= PAi/. vii. 1 (τὸ πνεῦμα 
νον τὰ κρυπτὰ ἐλέγχει), 6919 (μὴ πλανᾶσθε" οὔτε πόρνοι. . . οὔτε 
μοιχοί. .. βασιλείαν Θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσι) with 317 = Eph. 
XVi. I (μὴ πλανᾶσθε, ἀδελφοί μου᾽ οἱ οἰκοφθόροι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ 
κληρονομήσουσι) and PAil. 111. 3, 915 = Rom. vi. 1 (καλόν μοι 
ἀποθανεῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἤ κτλ.), τοἹ 1 = Phil. iv. 1 (μία yap 
σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἕν ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ 
αἵματος αὐτοῦ). Numerous other reminiscences occur: 3!017= 
Eph. ix. τ (λίθοι ναοῦ), 57= Magn. x. 3 (the old and evil leaven), 
722 = Rom. iv. 3 (ἀπελεύθερος "I. Χριστοῦ), 927 = Trall. xii. 3 (ἵνα μὴ 
ἀδόκιμος εὑρεθῶ), 1212= Trall, xi. 2, 15°8= Eph. x. 2, xx. 1, 1618 = 
Eph. ii. 2, etc. (cp. «ΜΖ. pp. 64-67: “Ignatius must have 
known this epistle almost by heart”). Polykarp, like Clement, 
actually quotes the epistle (xi. 2, aut nescimus quia sancti 
mundum iudicabunt? Sicut Paulus docet =6?); alone, among 
the apostolic fathers, he uses οἰκοδομεῖν, a favourite term of 1 Cor., 
and more than once his language reflects the earlier writing 
—e.g. ill, 2-3 = 1318, iv. 3 (οὔτε τι τῶν κρυπτῶν τῆς καρδίας) = 142, 
v. 3=6%, and xi. 4=12%6—though his employment of it is less 
explicit than that of Ignatius. No stress can be laid on the 
occasional coincidences between 1 Cor. and Hermas (Sim. v. vii. 
= 316-17), Mand. (Iv. iv. 1-2 = 7°90), 2 Clem. (vii. 1 = 97-2, ix. 3 
= 316 619), Barnabas (iv. 11, Vi. 11 = 31" 16-18%) or the Didaché 
(x. 6, μαρὰν ἀθά-- 16%), With 2 Cor., it appears in Marcion’s 
Canon and in the Muratorian, besides being used by the 
Ophites and Basilides, quoted almost verbally in Justin (dya/. 
xxxv. = 11186, cohort. xxxii.=12710 etc.) and Diéognet. v. (= 413) 
and xii. (=81), and cited by Irenzeust} (adv. haer. iv. 27. 3= 
toll? ν. 36=15%-6), Athenagoras (de resurr. mortis, 61 = 1554), 
Tertullian (fraescr. haer. xxxili.), and Clement of Alexandria 
(Paed. i. 33, etc.). Tertullian once (de monog. 3) asserts that it 
was written about one hundred and sixty years ago; although his 
language is loose, it proves, as Harnack points out, that by the 


5 Cp. WTA. 40-44, where the occurrence of the same quotation in 1 Co 
2° and Clem. Rom. xxxiv. 8 (Aart. Poly. ii.), is explained by the independent 
use of a pre-Christian source (see above, p. 31). 

4 Quoting the earlier testimony of an elder. 


116 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


beginning of the third century an interest was taken by some 
Carthaginian Christians in the chronology of Paul’s letters. 

§ 6. Zhe unrecorded visit.—Previous to the composition of 
1 Cor., Paul does not seem to have visited Corinth after his 
first mission, when the local churches were founded (Ac 18*}). 
The silence, not only of Acts but of 1 Cor. itself,* tells against 
the hypothesis (e.g. of Billroth, Reuss, B. Weiss, Schmiedel : 51 f., 
Holsten, Denney, G. G. Findlay, and Zahn) that this diffident 
and successful visit (1 Co 23) was followed by another, prior to 
the letter of 1 Co 5%, which has remained unrecorded (Alford, 
Lightfoot, Sanday, Waite, and Bernard, after Klopper and 
Rabiger; cp. Hilgenfeld in ZW7., 1888, 171 f.). His recent 
knowledge of the church, at the time when 1 Cor. was composed, 
rested on information given him by οἱ ἐκ Χλόης (11, cp. 5} 1138), 
and on the letter forwarded to him by the church itself (7!) ; the 
communications between himself and the Christians of Corinth, 
since he left, had been entirely epistolary (5°). The sole visit im- 
plied in 1 Co (cp. 2! 32112) is that which led to the establishment 
of the church; 1nd, although Paul may have mentioned it in the 
letter of 1 Co 5°, while the new developments drove it into the back- 
ground afterwards, it is not easy to suppose that if he had revisited 
the church during the interval he would have spoken, as he does 
in 1 Cor., about his personal relations with the local Christians. 

While 1 Cor. does not presuppose a second visit, however, it 
foreshadows one. The tone of 2 Co 2? (ἔκρινα δὲ ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο, 
τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν), where πάλιν most naturally 
goes closely with ἐν λύπῃ, implies that, since writing 1 Cor. he 
had paid a visit which left painful memories. The λύπη was 
not the depression of 1 Co 2°; it was a later sorrow, probably 
occasioned by unworthy members of the church itself, but we 
can only conjecture (from references like 2 Co 12%) its origin. 
Why did Paul hurry over to Corinth? To vindicate in person 
his authority against the machinations of Judaistic agitators 
who had been discrediting his gospel and his character? To 
enforce the discipline of the incestuous person (1 Co 5%), which 
the local Christians were perhaps unwilling to carry through? 
Or to maintain discipline more generally (cp. 2 Co 1271)? The 
choice probably lies among the two latter; the occasion of 


* 1 Co 167 cannot be pressed into the support of this view, fcr ἄρτι points 
forward, not backward. 
+ So formerly Belser (7@Q., 1894, 17-47). 


SECOND CORINTHIANS 117 


the visit was moral laxity rather than the emergence of cliques 
in the local church. This view is almost necessary when 
the intermediate visit is placed prior to the letter of 1 Co 5%, 
but it fits in with the theory which inserts that visit between 
1 Cor. and the intermediate letter, although our lack of informa- 
tion about the origin of the cliques at Corinth prevents any 
reconstruction from being more than hypothetical. 

Grammatically, the language of 2 Co 12!4 and 13! might be 
taken tc denote not his actual visit, but simply his inten- 
tions (so eg. Paley, Baur, de Wette, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, 
Renan, Farrar, Ramsay, G. H. Gilbert: Student’s Life of Paul, 
pp. 160f., Robertson). The context and aim of the epistle 
must decide, and the evidence seems strongly in favour of the 
former view. Against people who suspected his consistency and 
goodwill, it would have been of little use to plead that he had 
honestly intended to come, that he had been quite ready to visit 
them. His actions, not his wishes, were the final proof 
desiderated by the Corinthians, and the passages in question 
(cp. 13? where παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον καὶ ἀπὼν viv answers to εἰς τὸ 
πάλιν) gain immensely in aptness when they are taken to imply 
that Paul was on the point of paying a third visit in person. 

In any case the key to 2 Cor. is not so much its affinity of - 
style and language to 1 Cor. as the change which has come over 
the situation. New elements of strain have entered into the 
relations between Paul and the church, and one of these, which 
lies on the face of 2 Cor., is a suspicion of his character. This 
was occasioned, among other things, by an alteration which he 
had felt himself obliged to make in his plans for revisiting the 
church. The details of this new situation, so far as they can be 
made out, are one of the main proofs for the thesis that 2 Cor. 
cannot be explained simply out of 1 Cor. 

In 1 Co 16% Paul promises to pay them what he hopes will be a long 
visit, on his way south from Macedonia. At present (ἄρτι), he would only 
have time for a flying visit (ἐν παρόδῳ) : besides, the pressure of work at 
Ephesus will keep him there till Pentecost. The critical state of matters at 
Corinth forced him, however, to pay a rapid visit. When he writes the 
intermediate letter, he anticipates a third visit, but says nothing about its 
details, except to protest that he would take no money for his support (1215), 


and that he would be as strict, if necessary, as on his second disciplinary visit 
(13%), But either in the lost pe of this Pete or more probably Oy (on 


μὲ The γράφομεν of 133 is often feed to support this view ; but it may quite 
well refer simply to the present letter, 


118 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


the occasion of his rapid visit; Kénig, ZW7., 1897, pp. 523 f.), he must have 
led the Corinthians to believe that on this occasion he would pass through 
Corinth on his way to Macedonia, and then return to Corinth on his way to 
Judzea (2 Co 116 ; his destination is now more definite than when he wrote 
1 Co 168 οὗ ἐὰν πορεύωμαι). It was his desire thus to give them the benefit 
of a double visit (δευτέραν χάριν). Cicumstances, however, led him to alter 
his plans. Instead of crossing to Corinth, in the wake of Titus, he hurried 
anxiously to meet the latter on his return journey (2 Co 2135) via Macedonia, 
and 2 Co 1}5-2!5 is his explanation of the reasons which led to this change of 
plan. He defends himself against any suspicion of insincerity, explaining that 
he could not trust himself to come at once to them under the circumstances ; 
he could not have spared them (2 Co 1°, an allusion to 13”), and it was 
kinder to keep away. This implies that the Corinthians had heard not only 
of the promised double visit but of its abandonment,t and that therefore they 
suspected him of ἐλαφρία. If he was not coming at all, they argued, he had 
grown indifferent to them ; and even if he was takiny the round-about route 
via Macedonia, he had broken his promise to take them first. 

The competing view that the plan authorised in 2 Co 1%" was his original 
idea, and that 1 Co 16°* represents the change which the suspicious Corinthians 
misinterpreted to his discredit, reads into the latter passage a motive which is 
not there, and fails to account for the fear of λύπη which (according to 
2 Co 13-23) was his real motive for altering the programme (cp. Schmiedel, 
p- 69). The change of plan therefore falls later than the dispatch of 1 Cor. 

K. Hoss (ZV /¥V., 1903, 268-270) argues it was by his second visit that 
Paul practically altered the programme of 1 Co τό, He meant then to go 
on to Macedonia and return to Corinth, but the local troubles in the latter 
church drove him either straight back to Ephesus, or, more probably, on first 
of all to Macedonia, where the receipt of bad news (2 Co 135) made him 
abandon any thought of return in the meantime, and forced him back to 
Ephesus. In 2 Co 1’* he justifies this course of action, The theory is 
plausible, and would be strengthened by Krenkel’s view that ἔρχεσθαι is 
generally used in the sense of ‘return’ by Paul, as by other Greek writers 


(pp. 202 f.). 


Luke was as indifferent to the subsequent relations of Paul 
with the Corinthian as with the Thessalonian Christians, but the 
lacunz of his outline in Ac 18-19 are not seriously felt until we 
pass from 1 Cor. to 2 Cor. The latter writing presupposes a 


* On this view δευτέραν refers to the return visit on this tour, not to the 
second of his three visits (1214 13'), the καί clauses being epexegetic of χάριν. 
The variant χαράν corresponds excellently to 15’ (συνεργοί ἐσμεν τῆς χαρᾶς 
ὑμῶν), but may have been introduced from that very passage. 

+ Halmel (Der Zweite Kor. Brief, 48£.), Dr. Kennedy (of. cit. pp. 34 f.), 
and Plummer all deny this ; but the passage (2 Co 115-16) seems deprived of its 
force if it is reduced to a defence against the charge of ἐλαφρία, on the ground 
that he really wanted to visit them ‘if only he could do so without having to 
exercise severity,” or that he had simply delayed to pay his promised visit as 
he had intended. 


SECOND CORINTHIANS 119 


stormy interlude, upon which Acts throws no light and 1 Cor. 
very little; the painful situation has to be reconstructed from 
allusions in 2 Cor. itself. Either Luke was ignorant of the 
details or, as is more likely, he chose to pass over so unedifying 
and discreditable a local episode. In any case it did not come 
within the scope of his work to sketch the development of the 
Gentile Christian churches founded by the apostle Paul, or to 
chronicle every later visit paid by the missioners to a church. 

§ 7. The intermediate letter (= 2 Co 10!13!°).—From this 
visit Paul returned to Ephesus, saddened and baffled (2 Co 125), 
His mission had been fruitless and unpleasant. J decided, he 
tells the Corinthians, ‘hat J would not vistt you again in sorrow ; 
instead of a visit, which would have only led to pain, J wrote to 
you out of much distress and misery of heart with many tears 
(2* 78). This distress and passion made Paul’s letter so sarcastic 
and severe that the recollection of the language he had used 
afterwards caused him some qualms of conscience (227), although 
its threats and appeals were intended to lance a tumour. 


Unless this letter has been lost,* like the first one sent by Paul to Corinth, 
it must be identified either (2) with 1 Corinthians or (ὁ) with 2 Co 10-13. 
The former (a) hypothesis} surely breaks down when 1 Cor. is compared with 
the object of the intermediate letter as defined in 2 Co 15 φῇ" 78, Even 
such passages in 1 Cor. as vibrate with irony and passion (e.g. 48% 145) are 
not only inadequate to account for Paul’s anxiety about the pain he had 
caused his friends, but also too few and too little characteristic of the 
epistle as a whole to be regarded as likely to stamp themselves specially 
either on the mind of the Corinthians or on the memory of the apostle. 1 Cor. 
is permeated by a spirit of calm, practical discussion, whose occasional 
outbursts of emotional tension (¢.g. in 5-6) could not have caused Paul even 
a momentary twinge of compunction. His language in 2 Co 2‘ and 78 is too 
definite to be explained as the mere recollection of one or two isolated 
sentences in an epistle of the size and general character of 1 Cor., and a solitary 
postscript like 1 Co 164 cannot be adduced as proof of the ἀγάπη recalled in 
2 Co 24, The alternative is to suppose (4) that this letter of disturbed feeling 
has been preserved, in whole or part, in the closing section (10!~13?°) of 
our canonical 2 Corinthians, an hypothesis which is favoured by the spirit, 
contents, and style of these chapters. They are written out of the tension felt 
by one who was not yet sure of his ultimate success in dealing with a difficult 


* So especially Bleek (SX., 1830, 625-632), Credner (Zin/. i. 371), 
Olshausen, Ewald (Sendschreiben d. Paulus, 227 f.), Godet, Neander (293 f.), 
Sabatier, Klopper (Untersuchungen, 24f.), Robertson, Drummond, Findlay 
in 228. iii. 711 f. ; Jacquier, Lietzmann, and Barth (JV7 49-50). 

t Advocated by Meyer, Ellicott, B. Weiss, Sanday, Denney, Zahn, and 
Bernard, amongst others. 


[20 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUI 


situation. They vibrate with anger and anxiety. Paul’s authority and actions 
had been called in question by a Jewish Christian party of intruders whose 
teaching also constituted a real peril for his converts. To meet these dangers, 
due to the same overbearing party who had gained a footing in the church 
(117°), possibly headed by some ringleader (ὁ τοιοῦτος, τις, 25 712), Paul retorts 
upon his detractors. It is possible, and even evident, that they had been 
able to inflict some severe and public humiliation upon him by means of 
charges of unscrupulous dealing, overbearing conduct, unfounded pretensions 
to the apostolic ministry, and so forth. At any rate their success roused his 
anger. Not on personal grounds merely, but because, as at Thessalonika 
(see above), an attack on his character and authority involved his very gospel, 
Paul eagerly rushes to defend himself against slander and censure on the part 
of his opponents and suspicion on the part of his converts. He proceeds to 
exhibit his own titles to credit and honour as an apostle of Christ. Self- 
exaltation is the keynote: καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ. Paul’s aim is to defend his 
character, with which his gospel was bound up, against slander and deprecia- 
tion. He exhibits, with a mixture of pride and reluctance, his indefeasible 
titles to credit as an apostle of Jesus Christ. In chs. 1-9 the sense of 
καύχησις, καύχημα, and καυχᾶσθαι (a group of words especially characteristic 
of 2 Cor.) is, except once (113), entirely complimentary to the Corinthians, 
and indeed confined to them, whereas the nineteen instances in 10-13 
are permeated by a hot sense of personal resentment against disloyal 
suggestions and criticisms at Corinth. Psychologically this tone is entirely 
suitable to the occasion. ‘‘In great religious movements the leaders are 
often compelled to assert themselves pretty peremptorily, in order that their 
work may not be wrecked by conceited and incapable upstarts ” (Drummond, 
pp. 171-172). Paul follows here much the same method as in his first letter 
to the Thessalonians, although the latter had not been carried away like 
the Corinthians by the insinuations of outsiders against their apostle. He 
endeavours to expose the shamelessness and futility of such attacks upon him, 
in order to discredit the influence of such opponents upon his converts. It is 
painful, he protests, to be obliged to assert his apostolic authority (το "δ, cp. 
an excellent paper by V. Weber in BZ., 1903, 64-78), but authoriiy he has 
(107-'8) as well as his rivals, these superlative apostles of the Judaising party. 
If he must parade his apostolic claims (111) to the Corinthians, let him 
remind them that he had merely foregone his claim to maintenance out of 
disinterested consideration (117°), not—as his opponents malignantly in- 
sinuated—because he felt he dared not ask the support which every legitimate 
apostle was entitled todemand. After a fresh, half-ironical apology (11'%-*1), he 
goes on proudly to match his merits against those of his rivals (117'-*8), and 
to claim superiority in actual services and sufferings for the cause of Christ 
(11-83),* Finally, he gives an autobiographical outline of his claim to have 
visions and revelations (121-10. After a summary of these arguments (12!'"9), 
he reiterates his honesty and aathority in view of a third visit (12'*~-13"). 

It is to this intermediate letter, as much as to Romans or Galatians, that 


* On the insecurity and danger of travelling, see Miss A. J. Skeel’s 
Travel in the First Century after Christ, with special referemce to Asia 


Minor (1901), pp. 70f. 


SECOND CORINTHIANS 121 


Jerome’s fanous description of Paul’s style applies: ‘quam artifex, quam 
prudens, quam dissimulator sit eius quod agit, uidentur quidem uerba 
simplicia, et quasi innocentis hominis ac rusticani . . . sed quocunque 
respexeris, fulmina sunt. hzeret in causa, capit omne quod tetigerit, tergu:n 
uertit ut superet, fugam simulat ut occidat.’? This tallies not merely with his 
employment of OT citations, but with his argument and invectives. The 
abruptness of the opening words (αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος) shows that 1o!-13" 
represents in all likelihood only a fragment of the original. It is more 
probable that the entire letter was written by Paul (the earlier part, no longer 
extant, perhaps in his own name and in that of Timotheus) than that the 
extant portion was appended originally to a circular letter from other Christian 
leaders at Ephesus. 13! does echo 1010, but this does not prove that the 
latter passage represents the original opening of the epistle. From 107" we 
might conjecture that the lost context included a reference to the apostle’s 
detractors at Corinth, but in any case there is no logical or psychological 
antithesis between 9! and 10%, 

The incongruity of 10-13 as a sequel to I-9 was seen as far back as the 
eighteenth century by Semler, who tentatively suggested that 10-13 repre- 
sented a later and separate epistle, or that portions of them (e.g. 1214-?), 
13.109) were misplaced from 1 Co 2 5518; and by M. Weber (de numero epist. 
ad Corinth. rectius constituendo, 1798), who separated 1-9, 13!°"!8 from 10-13”, 
a construction still advocated on varying grounds by critics like Krenkel 
(Beztrage, pp. 308f.) and Drescher (SA., 1897, pp. 43-111). The latter 
portion, on this theory, was written after Titus and his party had come back 
from Corinth. The further step of relegating 10-13 to an earlier period than 
that of 1-9 was first taken by Hausrath in his momentous essay, whose general 
conclusions have been ratified and restated by an increasing cohort of 
scholars, including (besides those named above on p. 109) Paulus, Weisse 
(Philos. Dogmatik, i. 145), Wagenmann (/ahrd. dewt. Theol., 1870, p. 541), 
Michelsen (77Z., 1873, 424), Lipsius (/P7., 1876, pp. 530f.), Steck, 
Seufert (ZW7., 1885, p. 369), Schmiedel, Cramer, Cone (Paul, The Man, 
The Teacher, and the Missionary, pp. 47, 125), McGiffert (44. 313-315), 
Adeney (1.77. 368f.), Moffatt (@V7. pp. 174f.), Bacon (JV7. 93f., 
Story of St. Paul, pp. 284f.), Clemen (Padus, i. 79f.), Plummer, Pfleiderer 
(Urc., Eng. tr., i. 144 f.), von Soden (V7. 46-56), Volter, R. Scott, G. H. 
Rendall, and A. S. Peake (JV7. 35f.). Schmiedel’s treatment has given 
a new rank and impressiveness to the theory, but Kennedy and Rendall 
are its ablest advocates in English. The internal evidence for 10!13!° 
as prior to 1-9 has been already outlined, and it remains only to point out 
how often in the latter letter the former is echoed (e.g. 13? in 1%, 13! in 23, 
10° in 2°, the self-assertion of 11° 18: 3 in 3!=512), how incidental phrases 
like els τὰ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν (10'%= Rome and Spain, cp. Ro 15% %) and ol 
ἀδελφοὶ ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας (11°) suit Ephesus better than Macedonia as 
the place of composition, and finally how the two letters came to be united 
in an order which was the reverse of the chronological one. 

When the Pauline letters came to be edited for the purposes of the Canon, 
the earlier of the two extant letters to Corinth was stripped of its opening 
and added to the later and larger one. Both made up a single writing 
similar in size to 1 Cor. Instances of this inverted order, in the editing of 


22 THE CORRESPCNDENCE OF PAUL 


‘etters, are known in the case, ¢.g., of Cicero’s correspondence. The finalé, 
13-13, which does not come naturally * after 1.319, was probably shifted to 
that position from its original site at the end of 9 (note the characteristic play 
on words in χάρις and χαίρετε, 9 3", and the aptness of 13}}13 as a finalé to 
9, where the collection on behalf of the Palestinian relief fund is treated as a 
bond of union and an opportunity of brotherly kindness). Here, as else- 
where in ancient literature, the reasons for such editorial handling elude the 
modern critic. Possibly, as Kennedy suggests, the copyist or editor of the 
two letters welded them together in this order, since ch. 9 promised ¢ visit and 
ch. 10 apparently referred to it. ‘It is indeed a visit of a very different kind. 
There is an apparent resemblance concealing a deep-seated difference, but this is 
precisely the complexion of things which would be likely to mislead a copyist.” 

Objections have been tabled to the identification of 1o'-13" with the 
intermediate and painful letter, (2) such as the lack of any reference to the 
case of the local offender (2 Co 2° 7!*), which was not yet settled.t But 
10-13 is not necessarily the whole of the original letter, and in any case 
the apostle probably leaves the offender alone because his mind was con- 
centrated on the broader issue of which this man’s case formed only part. 
The case had now fallen to the Corinthians to deal with. Possibly, too, 
the matter was left out of the final recension, as it had ended satisfactorily. 
(ὁ) ro need not refer to the painful intermediate letter; the allusion fits 
the letter of 1 Co 5° and 1 Co itself quite admirably. (¢) 1°3 does not imply 
that the painful letter was in lieu of a visit. As 21 shows, the painful visit 
had been made. 

The alternative to this rearrangement of 10-13, I-9, is to account for the 
abrupt alteration of tone in 10% by conjecturing, ¢.g., (a) that since writing 
1-9, Paul had unexpectedly received unfavourable news from Corinth, which 
led him to break out upon his disloyal church with fresh reproaches. This 
is possible, but it is pure guesswork. There is no word of it in 10-13, 
as there surely would have been in order to account for the rapid change 
of tone. The supposition (6) that in the last four chapters he suddenly turns 
to a special and recalcitrant faction in the church is equally forced. They 
are addressed to the church as a whole (cp. 137), not to any turbulent 


* The sequence of 13!° and 13" is plainly editorial (cp. especially Krenkel, 
pp- 358f.). ‘*So does no man write. The tragedy of King Lear, passing 
into an idyllic dance of peasants—such is the impression of the paragraph as 
it stands. It is an absolute om seguztur” (Mackintosh, p. 338). 

+ It should no longer require to be proved that this offender is not the 
incestuous person of 1 Co 5', but some one who had wronged Paul himself 
(ὁ ddcxnBels). The indulgent consideration of 2 Co 7*" refers to a situation 
which did not exist when 1 Cor. was written (cp. Weizsicker, 44. pp. 34I- 
353), and Timotheus could not be ὁ ἀδικηθείς, except as Paul’s representa- 
tive. The person who insulted Paul might conceivably be the offender of 
1 Co 5', but the likelihood is that he was another Corinthian who took 
umbrage, or rather voiced the feelings of those who took umbrage, at Paul’s 
domineering methods of discipline. Had the misconduct been due to a 
private quarrel between two members of the tucal church (Krenkel, 304 ἢ), 
it could hardly have become so significant as to involve the apostle. 


SECOND CORINTHIANS 123 


minority. It is in the opening of the later epistle that Paul distinguishes the 
majority (2%) from a section of disaffected members, and the ὑπακοή of 
29= 715-16 is much more intelligible after than before 10%. The sharp warning 
of 1271 upsets the (2) view that in 1-9 Paul is praising the church for it 
repentance, while in 10-13 he is blaming it for still siding with his 
opponents. Finally (4), the view of Drescher and Klopper, that Paul wrote 
1-9 under a sanguine misapprehension of the real state of affairs at Corinth, 
as reported by Titus incorrectly, and that 10-13 represents his rebound to the 
opposite extreme of denunciation, lies open to the same objection 45 (α). In 
short, all theories which place 10-13 after 1-9, either as part of the same 
epistle or as a later letter, involve the hypothesis that the Corinthian trouble, 
after all that had happened, broke out again in the same acute form as before. 
This difficulty besets even the presentment of the case for the canonical 
structure of the epistle (recently urged, with ability, by Weiss, A/T. i. 355-363 ; 
Kl6pper, Rohr, A. Robertson, Zahn, 77, §§ 19-20; Denney, Bachmann, 
414f., and Bernard), which defends its integrity mainly on the general ground 
that the closing four chapters represent not a fresh situation, but an emotional 
and argumentative climax, the last charge, as it were, of Paul’s dialectic, 
which was carefully kept in reserve until it could sweep out to complete the 
victory already gained in part (114). Some critics further argue that 2 Cor. is 
emphatically a letter of moods,* which was not composed at a single sitting, 
and that strong cross-currents of feeling are to be expected under the 
circumstances. But the variations in 1-9 and 10-13 are too decisive to be 
explained upon the mere supposition that Paul was a busy man who stopped 
now and then, as he dictated, or hurried from one subject to another. On any 
hypothesis there is a residuum of obscurity owing to the extremely intricate 
and subtle character of the relations between Paul and the Corinthian church ; 
but this residuum is decidedly less upon the theory just advocated than 
upon the view that after writing 2 Co 1-9 the apostle relapsed, for no obvious 
reason,f into the temper of scathing animosity and indignation from which 
he had just emerged, resuscitating an old quarrel after it had been almost 
buried. There is a psychological inconsequence on the latter theory which 
it is difficult to credit, even in a man of Paul’s passionate temperament. 


§ 8. 2 Co -9.—The effect of this sharp letter was favourable. 
Titus returned from Corinth to greet Paul in Macedonia with 
the glad news that the church had regained her loyalty and 
vindicated him at the expense of his opponents (218 714), 

This happy intelligence found Paul (at Philippi?) tossing on 
a 5641 of troubles (1-2), partly raised by recent experiences in 


΄ 


* This invalidutes the parallel (brought forward by Cornely, after Hug 
and Riickert) with the De Corona, the first part of which is calm and moderate, 
while in the later sections Demosthenes breaks out deliberately into a violent 
polemic against his opponent. 

+ The reductio ad absurdum of this hypothesis is surely reached in Lietz- 
mann’s naive remark (p. 204): ‘mir genugt z. B. die Annahme einer 
schlaflos durchwachten Nacht zwischen c. 9 und c. 10 zur Erklarung,’ 

t Cp. the description of 2 Cor. by L. Davies (Z.xf.‘ iv. 299-300): ‘‘ The 


124 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


Asia Minor, partly by anticipations of the future. Driven fram 
his old anchorage at Ephesus, he was still uncertain whether 
Corinth, his former harbour, would admit him. The informa 
tion brought by Titus banished this anxiety, and out of the 
glad sense of relief * he wrote a fresh epistle (1-9), breathing 
delight and affectionate gratitude, irenical in tone, designed to 
re-establish mutual confidence and to obliterate all memories of 
the past bitter controversy. To forgive and to forgec is its 
keynote. The sky is once more clear, so far as the apostle 
is concerned. Indeed, after pouring out his heart to the 
Corinthians, he even ventures at the close to renew his appeal 
on behalf of the collection (8-9). These two chapters are not 
an anticlimax (see below), and “there is no good reason for 
treating them as a separate epistle. As such the semi-apolo- 
getic tone would make it poor and unconvincing; while, as an 
appendage to 1-7, the tone adopted is appropriate, natural, and 
in perfect good taste. It is a happy parallel to the epistle to 
Philemon, and the same note of Christian chivalry, courtesy, and 
delicacy pervades both” (Rendall, p. 73). 


The epistle opens with an invocation of God as the comforter, which 
leads Paul to speak about his own recent experiences of deliverance (1*") 
in Asia Minor. He then passes on (115) to explain his change of plans, t 
his reasons for writing instead of travelling to them (138-211), and his journey 
to Macedonia (2!2"!7), This suggests a general vindication of his ministry and 
preaching (3'-4°), with all its sufferings (47-5!) and methods of appeal (5}}- 
6). Then, after a quick outburst of appeal to the Corinthians themselves 
for frank confidence in him (611-18. 72-4), the apostle harks back to the contrast 
between their past trouble and this present happiness (7°), thanking them for 
their kind reception of Titus his envoy (715), and using the example of the 
Macedonian churches’ liberality to incite them to proceed with the business of 
the Palestinian relief fund or collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem (8-9) 
—a task which Titus himself would superintend in person. With a hearty 
farewell (131-18) the letter then closes. 


letter exhibits a tumult of contending emotions. Wounded affection, joy, self- 
respect, hatred of self-assertion, consciousness of the authority and importance 
of his ministry, scorn of his opponents, toss themselves like waves, sometimes 
against each other, on the troubled sea of his mind. Strong language, not 
seldom stronger than the occasion seems to warrant, figurative expressions, 
abrupt turns, phrases seized and flung at his assailants, words made up, iterated, 
played upon, mark this epistle far more than any other of the apostle’s letters.” 

* Note the repetition of παράκλησις (eleven times). 

+ On 1% 8-10. 15-17. 23 21, cp, Warfield in JBL. (1886) 27 f. 

t The old identification of the anonymous brother (τὸν ἀδελφόν) of 818 and 
12'8 with Luke is carried a step further by Souter (27. xviii. 285, 325-36}. 
who takes the words in their literal sense, 


SECOND CORINTHIANS 125 


The course of the letter is determined vy the unpremeditated 
movements of the writer’s mind, working on the practical 
situation of the Corinthians. It is too artificial to find, with 
Heinrici, any rhetorical scheme in the disposition of its contents, 
as if it presented a προοίμιον (31:9), πρόθεσις and ἀπόδειξις (37-18), 
λύσις (4115), egressus in causa (4-571) ἐπίλογος (61-74), and 
ἀνατροπὴ μεθ᾽ ὑπερβολῆς (10-13). For one thing this covers at 
once too much (10-13) and too little (1-2) of the epistle, and, 
while such artistic schematism may be applicable to Hebrews 


(see below), it seems irrelevant in the case of this genuine letter. 
(a) The paragraph 614-7! probably is a fragment interpolated from some 
other epistle, in all likelihood from the lost letter written first of all to the 
Corinthian church (see above, p. 109).* In its present situation it looks like 
an erratic boulder, and although no MSS evidence can be adduced for the 
hypothesis, the internal evidence is fairly conclusive (so Emmerling, Schrader: 
der Apostel Paulus, 1835, 300f. ; Straatman, pp. 138f.; Ewald; Hilgenfeld ; 
A. H. Franke, SA., 1884, pp. 544-583 ; 5. Davidson, 7VT. i. 63 ; Holsten, 
zum Ev. des Paulus τε. Petrus, p. 386; Sabatier’s Paul, pp. 177-178 ; Hausrath, 
iv. 55 f.; Renan, iii. lxii-lxiii; Rovers, Baljon, Cremer, Clemen, Pfleiderer : 
Ure. i. 1343 McGiffert, p. 332; Moffatt, HVZ. pp. 628-629; von Soden, 
Bacon, [la!lmel, etc.). The connection of 611-13 and 7? is good : Ὁ we keep nothing 
back from you, O Corinthians ; our heart ts wide open. Your constraint lies 
notin us, tt lies in your own hearts. Now one good turn deserves another 
(to speak as to my children), be you wide open too. Take us tnto your hearts. 
On the other hand 6.8 fits on as roughly to 6! as 7! to 7%, and the ordinary 
explanations of the canonical order are singularly strained. Thus Godet 
(NT. i. 321-323) makes Paul’s demand for strict abstinence the reason why 
the Corinthians were holding back from him ; but the constraint of which he 
is conscious lies surely in the personal feelings left by the recent strain 
between them and himself. ‘‘ Much of the coldness towards Paul” was, no 
doubt, ‘‘the result of an unworthy deference to heathen sentiment and 
practice” (Drummond); but of this particular cause there is no hint in the 
context or even in the letter (for 13” belongs to an earlier epistle).£ 


* So Hilgenfeld, Franke, Sabatier, Lisco, von Dobschiitz (Ure. pp. 29, 
45), and von Soden; cp. Whitelaw, Class. Review (1590), pp. 12, 248, 317. 
Other conjectures suppose it has drifted from a later apostolic epistle (Ewald), 
or that it originally lay after 1 Co 10” (Hausrath, Blass: BAZ. x. 1, 51-60), 
if not 1 Co 6 (Pfleiderer). The letter mentioned in 1 Co 59% contained the 
very advice given in 2 Co 614-7! (cp. ἐξελθεῖν, 1 Co 5!°= ἐξέλθατε, 2 Co 61). 

+ Lisco’s intercalation of 124-!¥ between 618 and 7? is hopelessly wrong. 

$+ Weizsiicker’s theory (44. i. 363) is that the outburst of 64-7! is 
semi-apologetic, but the language does not suggest a desire on the part 
of the apostle to assert his opposition to pagan vices by way of meeting 
Judaistic reflections on his character and gospel. For Liitgert’s ingenious 
but equally unconvincing view, see #7. xx. 428-429. Recent explanations 
of its present position as part of the original epistle are offered by Bachm wu 
(289 f.) and Windisch (Zau/fe «. Stinde tm Urchristenthum, 149f.). 


126 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


Neither the language nor the ideas justify a suspicion of the genuineness 
of the passage,* as though it emanated from Jewish Christians, with a 
narrow repulsion to ‘ unclean things’ (6!”), or from a Puritan Christian of 
the second century (Straatman, i. pp. 138-146; Baljon, pp. 147-150, and 
others, including Schrader; Bakhuyzen; Holsten; Michelsen, 7'7., 1873, 
423; Rovers, 7VZ. pp. 37-38; Halmel, 115f.; Krenkel, Beztrage, 332; 
and R. Scott, Zhe Pauline Epistles, 236-237). The sole feature which is 
at first sight out of keeping with Paul’s normal thought is, as Schmiedel 
admits (pp. 253 f.) after an exhaustive discussion, the allusion to the defilement 
of flesh and spirit (71); but + flesh here is used in a popular sense (cp. 1 Co 7# 
holy in body and spirit) almost as an equivalent to σαν, while spirit is to 
be read untechnically in the light of a passage like 1 Th 5%. 

(4) A second instance of extraneous matter in the canonical letter is 
furnished by the brief paragraph 11588, describing Paul’s escape from 
Damascus ; this interrupts the sequence of thought in 11%-8! 125 (exulting 
and weakness) so violently as to rouse suspicions of its right to stand here 
(so Holsten, ZW7T., 1874, 388f., and van Leeuwen, de joodsche achtergrond 
van der Brief aan de Romeinen, 1894, p. iii., adding 12’ ; Hilgenfeld, 
Schmiedel, and Baljon, adding 12!; Michelsen, 77., 1873, pp. 424f., 
adding 12" 75; and Rovers, V7. 38, adding 12 110-12), ‘The historicity 
of the paragraph need not be doubted’ (Schmiedel), the two real difficulties 
being the precise date of the incident and the manner in which the paragraph 
drifted into its present position. On the latter point, the alternatives are to 
suppose (with Rovers, ZW7., 1881, 404, and others) that it was inserted by 
a scribe who failed to find any illustration Φ of ἀσθένεια (1189) in the context, 
or that it is a marginal addition by Paul himself, properly belonging to the 
parenthesis 11% (so Wendt, “ως, p. 35), or that it originally belonged to 
some other letter (Bacon, Story of St. Paul, pp. 87-88). The last-named 
scholar dates the occurrence after A.D. 38, in the period of Gal. 1%-*4 (cp, 
2 Co 12"). 


§ 9. Zhe structure of 2 Cor.—Beyond the relegation of 614-73 
to an earlier epistle, and of 10-1319 to the intermediate letter, it 
is hardly possible to push the analysis. 2 Co 1-8 and even 
1-9 hang together too closely to be resolved into more than one 
letter (cp. Clemen in ZZZ., 1897, 560 f.; Rohr, pp. 102f.), but 
it is the supposed difference of situation between 8 and g which 
started not only Semler’s theory (9=a separate letter to the 
Christians of Achaia), but more recently A. Halmel’s§ drastic 


* Cp. Clemen’s discussion, Zinheitlichkeit, pp. 58f., and Paulus, i. 77-78. 

+ So Sokolowski emphatically (Die Begriffe Geist u. Leben bet Paulus, 
1903, pp. 126f., 144f.), and M. Dibelius (Dze Geisterwelt im Glauben des 
Paulus, 1909, 62 f.). 

t Those who defend the passage in its present position take this line 
of interpretation, as if Paul were frankly confessing an experience which 
savoured to some of cowardice (so especially Heinrici). 

§ Cp. Holtzmann’s review in GGA. (1905) 667f., of his Der sweite 
Korintherbrief des Apostels Paulus. Geschichtliche und Ltteraturkritischa 


SECOND CORINTHLANS 127 


reconstruction of three letters: A=1!? 18-218 758% 1313 
B=10!—131, and C=1%7 214-74 9. 13112, A and C being put 
together about A.D. τοῦ, when 6!4-7! 31218 and 4346 were 
editorially added, whilst B was not incorjorated until afterwards. 
The deletion of the two latter passages as non Pauline (allied 
to the ep. of Barnabas) is fatal to this theory. The discovery of 
a flaw in the juxtaposition of 2! and 214% is due to prosaic 
exegesis, and the failure to see that 115% implies a second visit 
obliges the author to posit this visit between the composition of 
A and B, in fulfilment of the promise made in 115, C was 
written immediately prior to the apostle’s last visit. Some of 
the obvious difficulties in this complicated scheme (B=the 
appendix* to a letter from the Macedonian churches which 
the Corinthians took as an ἐπιστολὴ συστατική, cp. 3!) are 
avoided by Volter (Paulus und seine Briefe, pp. 74f.), who 
advocates the identification of 10-13! with the Intermediate 
Letter, but acutius quam verius eliminates 121-22 216b_46 416_ 511 516 
61471, and 89 from 1-g, 1311-13 as matter due to a later editor 
or editors (see above, p. 113). The criticism of Halmel would 
apply even more stringently to Lisco’s keen attempt on similar 
lines (Die Enstehung des zwetten Korintherbriefes, Berlin, 1896) 
to find three separate epistles in A= 10-13! with 61471 between 
1219 and 127, B= 11- 613 with 124-19 and 773 9, 131-18 and C= 
74-874, an attempt which, in his /udaismus Triumphatus: Ein 
Beitrag zur Auslegung der vier letzten Kapitel des swetten 
Corintherbriefes (1896), rightly identifies A with the sharp letter 
presupposed in B, but makes C the letter entrusted to Titus, 
while, more elaborately still, in his Vincula Sanctorum, Ein 
Beitrag zur Erklarung der Gefangenscha/tsbriefe des Apost. 
Paulus (1900), for reasons as precarious in exegesis as they are 


Untersuchungen (1904), which presents a revised form of his earlier 
monograph on Der Vierhapitelbrief im zwettn Korintherbrief (1894), 
reviewed by J. Weiss in 7ZZ., 1894, 513f. Halmel appeals (pp. 8f.) toa 
Dutch critic, E. J. Greve, who in the third volume (1804) of his De brieven 
~ van den Apostel Paulus, uit het Grieksch vertaald, met Aanmerkingen, 
argued that Titus left for Corinth without Paul’s letter, which was written as 
far as 2 Co 81, and that the rest was added by the apostle on receipt of fresh 
news from Corinth. J. Weiss’ attempt to detect the intermediate letter in 
1. 244-74 10!-13” fails to prove the connection between the two latter sections, 
or to justify the separation of 2!4 from its context. 

* Hausrath had made it the appendix to a letter from the Ephesian 
shurch (Aquila ὃ). 


128 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


ill-supported in tradition, he places the prison epistles in some 
Ephesian captivity of the apostle; after A (as abow) come 
Titus, Colossians, and Ephesians, previous to the trial, fc llowed 
by 2 Timothy and Philippians, and then B C (as above) with 
1 Co 15 written after his release. Some basis for such a 
reconstruction may be found in history, but none exists for 
Pierson and Naber’s (Verisimilia, pp. 108f.) deletion of 12-10 


16:18, 286. ol. 4 47-12 ΕἸΣ 72-4 yyl-y 32% 1018 ~The significance of Halmel 


and VdOlter in the criticism of the Corinthian correspondence 
mainly consists in their recoil from the results of the aberration 
which some years ago led a Dutch school of writers to regard 


even 2 Cor. as a romance of the second century (cp. 4.5. van 
Manen, OCZ. 38-41). 


Several more or less plausible cases of transposition or interpolation may 
be seen in the traditional text. 2!*% probaly has been displaced from 
its original setting after 122 (Van de Sande Bakhuyzen) or better after 17°, 
where chronologically its contents belong ; so Laurent (WZ Studien, pp. 24- 
28), Michelsen, and Baljon (pp. 142-143). This leaves an admirable and 
characteristic juxtaposition between 2! (Satan’s machinations) and 2! (God’s 
overruling providence).* Upon the other hand, the attempts to isolate 8 as a 
separate note (Hagge, p. 482f.), written later than 9 (Baljon, pp. 150-152), 
or as part of the Intermediate Letter (Michelsen, 77., 1873, 424; Hagge), 
break down for much the same reasons as the cognate hypothesis that 9 itself 
was a subsequent letter sent to the Achaian churches (9?, so Semler). The 
unity of the situation presupposed in 8 and 9 is too well-marked to justify any 
separation of the chapters either from one another or from the letter 1-9, 
whose natural conclusion they furnish (cp. Volter, pp. 92-94; Schmiedel, 
pp. 267-269, as against Halmel’s arguments in der swett, Kor. pp. 11-22). 
In 91 Paul is really explaining why he needs to say no more than he has said 
in 8%, Instead of being inconsistent with what precedes, οἱ clinches it, and 
9°? simply shows that he felt a difficulty, not unnatural under the circum- 
stances, about saying either too much or too little on the delicate topic of 
collecting money.t On the other hand, 112-12! has all the appearance of 
a marginal addition (cp. Wendt on Ac 9%), which has been misplaced from 
11%, or of a gloss interrupting the sequence (so Holsten, Hilg. ZW7., 1888, 
200 ; Schmiedel, Baljon, cp. HV7. 629-630), although the order 11% 83: 88. δ] 
would partially ease the somewhat jolting transition (see above, p. 126). 


* This helps to meet Halmel’s vehement objection (pp. 58f.) to the 
position of 2'*-74 in the canonical epistle. 

+ With 8” compare Byron’s remark to Moore (in 1822): “1 doubt the 
accuracy of all almoners, or remitters of benevolent cash.” The precautions 
taken with regard to the conveyance of the temple-tribute are noted by Phila 
in De Spec. Legibus, i. (περὶ ἱεροῦ, § 3), καὶ χρόνοις ὡρισμένοις ἱεροπομποὶ τῶ» 
χρημάτων ἀριστίνδην ἐπικριθέντες, ἐξ ἑκάστης ol δοκιμώτατοι, χειροτονοῦνται, 
σώους τὰς ἐλπίδας ἑκάστων παραπέμψοντες. 


SECOND CORINTHIANS 120 


δ 10. Attestation of 2 Cor.—z2 Cor. is quoted by the same 
authors as is 1 Cor. (see above, p. 114), after Marcion (cp. Diognet. 
ν. 12f.= 6%), but its earlier attestation is not equally strong. 
In two passages of Polykarp (iv. 1, vi. 2) the language recalls 
Romans rather than 2 Cor. (see below, p. 148), and vi. 1, like 831 
and Ro 121’, probably goes back to Pr 34 (LXX) rather than 
to either of these Pauline passages ; on the other hand, ii. 2 (6 δὲ 
ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν Kal ἡμᾶς ἐγερεῖ) may echo 413 (6 ἐγείρας τὸν 
Κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἡμᾶς σὺν Ἰησοῦ ἐγερεῖ). In Ignatius there are 
apparent, though far from distinct, reminiscences of 610 (= Eph. 
XV. 3, αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικοῦντος, ἵνα ὦμεν ναοὶ Kal αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν 
θεός) and 414 (= 7γα . ix. 2), possibly, too, of 113 119-10 1.210 
(Ξ δάϊιαά. vi. 3). The contents of Clem. Rom. v. 5-6 are 
inadequate to prove the use of 1125-27, and xxxvi. 2 can be 
explained apart from 318, as can Barn. iv. 11-13 (5!°)* and vi. 
τα, (517). The indifference of Clem. Rom. to 2 Cor., taken 
together with his appeal to 1 Cor., is all the more striking as the 
former epistle would have served his own purposes of exhortation 
with telling effect. It is perhaps a fair inference that, in its 
canonical form, 2 Cor. was not as yet circulated throughout the 
churches (cp. Kennedy, pp. 142f.; Rendall, 88f.); possibly it 
had not as yet been thrown into its present form. 


$11. Zhe apocryphal correspondence.—The Syrian, Armenian, and even 
some of the Latin churches, admitted for some time to their NT Canon (in 
Efraim’s commentary between 2 Cor. and Gal., elsewhere after Hebrews) 
an apocryphal letter of Paul to the Corinthians which originally belonged to 
the Acta Pauli,t and was translated into Latin and Syriac during the third 
century. Stephanas and others ask Paul’s advice upon the teaching of two 
Gnostics, Simon and Cleobius, who have arrived at Corinth. Paul, who is 
imprisoned at Philippi, replies from the standpoint of the genuine apostolic 
tradition. This so-called third epistle to the Corinthians (translated by 
Byron, cp. Moore’s Lzfe of Byron, vi. 269-275) was once defended as 
authentic by Whiston and W. F. Rinck (Das Sendschretben d. Kor. an der 
Apostel Paulus u. driste Sendsch. P. an die Korinther, 1823), but the 
correspondence is obviously composed ΖΦ on the basis of 1 Co 5° and 7! by 


* Cp. WTA, 11-12, where Bartlet suggests a common source, 

t Vetter (7@Q., 1895, 622 f.) conjectures in addition a rabbinic midrash on 
the resurrection. The original site of the correspondence in the Acta Pauli 
was first proved definitely by C. Schmidt (Neue Hecdelb. Jahrb., 1897, 117f., 
Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift Nr. 1 
herausgegeben, 1904, 125 f.). 

$ Just as 2 Co 12* was made the text and occasion of an ἀναβατικὸν 
Παύλου, according to Epiphanius (er. xviii. 12). 


9 


130 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


an author who stood no nearer to Paul than did the composer of the Thekla 
legends, and who wrote with reference to the doctrine of Bardesanes (cp. 
Berendts’ essay on the Christology of the correspondence, in Adhandlungen 
A. von Oettingen zum 70 Geburtstag gewidmet, 1898). 

For text and literature, see P. Vetter’s Tiibingen programme, Der 
Apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief (1894); Lietzmann’s Kleine Texte (12, 
1905); Zahn’s GA. ii. 592-611; Harnack in SBAA., 1905, 3-35, and ACL. 
i. 37-39, ii. 1. 506-508; and Rolffs in AVA. i. 362f., 378f., ii. 360, 388 f. 
The Latin version, discovered in 1890, was published by S. Berger and 
Carritre (Za correspondance apocryphe de S. Paul et des Corinthiens. 
Ancienne version latine et traduction du texte Arménien, 1891); cp. Harnack 
and Bratke in 7ZZ., 1892, 7-9, 585-588, Deeleman in 7heol. Studién (1909) 
37-56. 


(D) ROMANS. 


LITERATURE.—(a) Editions !—Locke, Paraphrase and Notes (1733); G. T. 
Zacharia’s Erklirung (1788); Semler’s Paraphrasés (1769); C. F. Boehme’s 
Comment. perpetuus (1806); Belsham (London, 1822); R. Cox (//orae 
Romanae, London, 1824); Flatt’s Vorlesungen (1825); Klee (1830); 
H. E. G. Paulus (1831); Benecke (1831) ; Reiche (Versuch einer ausfihrl. 
Erfl. etc. 1833-4)* ; Hodge (1835) ; Olshausen (1835) ; Fritzsche (1836-43) * ; 
Riickert? (1839); R. Haldane (1842); Maier (1843); Rasmus Nielsen 
(Leipzig, 1843); Baumgarten-Crusius (1844); Reithmayr (1845); Kreyhl 
(1845); de Wette* (1847); R. Knight (1854); A. A. Livermore (Boston, 
1854); van Hengel (1854-9); Beelen (1854); Purdue (Dublin, 1855); 
Tholuck δ (1856, Eng. tr. 1842) ; Nielsen (Denmark, 1856) ; F. W. K. Umbreit 
(der Brief an die Romer, auf dem Grunde des AT ausgelegt, 1856); Ewald 
(1857); Dr. John Brown (Edinburgh, 1857); G. F. Jatho (1858-9); S. H. 
Turner (New York, 1859); Dr. David Brown (Glasgow, 1860); Colenso 
(St. Pauls ep. to Rom. Ed. from a mission. point of view, 1863); S. L. A. 
Ortloph (Erlangen, 1865-6) ; Hofmann (1868) ; J. Forbes (Edinburgh, 1868) ; 
F. Delitzsch, Brief a. d. Rimer aus dem griech. Urtext in das Hebraische 
ucbersetat u. aus Talmud u. Midrasch erldutert (1870)*; Bisping (1870) ; 
H. A. W. Meyer® (1872); Volkmar (1875); Moses Stuart® (1876); Reuss 
(1878) ; Moule (Cambridge Bible, 1879); Klofutar (1880); Godet (1879-80, 
Eng. tr. 1888) "; Oltramare (1881f.); E. H. Gifford (in Speaker's Comm. 
1881)*; H. Reinecke (1884); F. Zimmer (1887); Kleinschmidt (1888) ; 
C. J. Vaughan? (1890) ; Barmby (Px/pit Comm. 1890); C. W. Otto? (1891) ; 
A. Schifer (1891); Lipsius? (HC. 1892) ; Jowett® (1894); Lightfoot (Mores 
on Epp. St. Paul, 1895, on 1-7); Philippi* (Frankfurt, 1896); Cornely 
(Commentarius, Paris, 1897); J. M. Stifler (New York, 1897); Th. Heusser 
(1898) ; J. Drummond (1899) ; Weiss ® (— Meyer, 1899) *; W. G. Rutherford 
(tr. and analysis, 1900) ; Ceulemans (1901); J. Agar Beet® (1901); Denney 
(ΕΟΤ. 1901)*; Garvie (CB. 1901); Schlatter* (1901); Schat-Petersen 


1 On the patristic and medizval commentaries, see Sanday and Headlam, 
pp. xcviii-cii; on the pre-Lutheran, Denifle’s Luther u. Luthertum, i. Τὶ. 
(1905), besides the conspectus in Meyer’s ed. (Eng. tr., W. P. Dickson, 
Edin. 1873-1874) and in Grafe’s monograph. 


ROMANS 131 


(Paulus Briev til Romerne, 1902); J. van Andel (Briev aan de Romeinen, 
Kampen, 1904); Sanday and Headlam® (JCC. 1905) *; Lietzmann (ΒΤ. 
1906); Jiilicher (SM7.? 1907); G. Richter (1907); J. Niglutzsch? (Com- 
mentarius, 1907); Zahn (ZX. 1910). 

(6) Studies. —H. E. G. Paulus, de originzbus Pauli epistole ad Rom. 
(Jena, 1801); Baur (72dimg. Zecischr. f. Theol., 1836, 59f.)*; R. Rothe, 
Brief P. an die R. erklairt (1852); Th. Schott, der Réimerbrief, seinem 
Endzweck und Gedankengang nach ausgelegt (1858); W. Mangold, der 
Romerbrief u. die Anfinge der rom. Gemeinde (1866) ; Beyschlag (SA., 1867, 
pp. 6271.) ; Schenkel (BZ. v. 106-116); Baur’s Paulus (Eng. tr. i. 321f.); 
Weizsicker in Jahrb. deutsche T: heol. (1876) 248 f. ; M. Arnold, St. Paul and 
Protestantism (1876, ch. i.); Keble, Studia Sacra (1877, 45-147 on 11-614) ; 
Holsten (/P7., 1879, 95f., 314f., 680f.)*; Grafe, zder Veranlassung u. 
Zweck ad. Réimerbriefs (1881)*; A. Klostermann’s Korrekturen 2%. bisher. 
Erklarung d. Roimerbriefes (Gotha, 1881); W. Mangold, der Romerbrief 
u. seine gesch. Voraussetzungen (1884); Lorenz, das Lehrsystem im 
Réomerbrief (1884) ; Schiirer (2.8.3); van Manen, de brief aan de Romeinen 
(1890) ; Hilgenfeld (ZW7., 1892, 296-347); Liddon, Explanatory Analysis 
(1893) ; Hort, Romans and Ephesians (1895) *; A. C. Headlam (2 7. 1894-5); 
M. W. Jacobus, 4 Problem in NT Criticism (1900), 237f.; Denney (3 .χ 2.5 
iii.-v., ‘The Theology of the Epistle to the Romans’) * ; A. Robertson (2.8. 
iv. 295-306); Feine, der Komerbrief (1903); G. Semeria, 27 penstero die S. 
Paolo nella littera at Romani (Roma, 1903); Pfleiderer, Ure. i. 149f. 
(Eng. tr. i, 211f.); Bahnsen (PAZ, 1904, 26-31) ; von Dobschiitz, Ure. pp. 
121f.; D. Volter, Paulus u. seine Briefe (1905), pp. 135-228; Hupfeld, 
der Rimerbrief* (1905); R. J. Knowling, Zestémony of St. Paul to Christ 
* (1905, pp. 60f., 311 f., 465 f.) ; Zahn (Zz/. §§ 21-24) ; G. Richter’s Aritische- 
polemische Untersuchungen (BFT., 1908, xii. 6.). 


§ 1. Contents and outline—Special literature: C. F. Schmid 
(De epist. ad R. consilio, Tubingen, 1830) ; Kiene, Das Romerbrief 
u. das Joh. Evglm (1868), pp. 1-42; E. Walther, Jahalt und 
Gedankengang d. Romerbriefs (1897). 

After a brief introduction (11-7), Paul explains why he had 
never been able as yet to visit the Roman church, although he 
had hoped and still hoped to do so, in the course of preaching 
the gospel. Meanwhile, he proceeds to state that gospel as the 
exhibition of God’s δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (1817) for all 
men. This forms the theme of what follows.! In 118-320 the 
need of such a δικαιοσύνη is proved by the fact that Gentiles 
(118-82) 2 and Jews (2!-3”°) alike had missed it. But, just as the 
apostle’s religious philosophy of history has dipped into almost 


1On 3, cp. Dr. Jas. Morison’s monograph (1866), and G. W. Matthias’ 
Exegetische Versuch (Cassel, 1857); on 1-3, E. Weber’s essay (BFT7., 1905, 
ix. 4) on ‘die Beziehungen von Rém 1-3 z. Missionspraxis des Paulus.’ 

3 For the Alexandrian traits of 1° cp, Schjott in ZVW., 1903, 75-78. 


132 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


unrelieved gloom, it is brightened by the positive fact * that in 
Jesus Christ (331-81) God had revealed his δικαιοσύνη to the faith 
of man, whether Gentile or Jew. Faith, however, had been in 
the world before Christ, and so had revelation, particularly 
within the sphere of the Jewish Law; Paul therefore turns for 
a moment to show how the Christian gospel of δικαιοσύνη by 
faith, instead of being at variance with the spiritual order of the 
OT, was identical in principle with the very faith of Abraham 
upon which the Jew prided himself (415). Returning to the 
positive and blissful consequences of the universal δικαιοσύνη 
revealed in Jesus Christ (51:11), he throws these into relief against 
the sombre results of the fall of Adam; life had now superseded 
death, grace had triumphed over sin. But the supersession of 
the Law, so far from relaxing the moral bonds of life, only laid 
higher obligations on the soul of the believing man (615). This 
leads the apostle to describe the struggle of the soul between the 
Law’s demands and the thwarting power of sin, a conflict between 
the spirit and the flesh (7!) which can only be resolved by the 
interposition of Jesus Christ.t ‘The faith which identifies man 
with him invests life with the divine Spirit (815), which is the 
sole guarantee of a sound life in the present and of security in 
the future. 

At this point there is a certain break in the argument. 
Hitherto he has been mainly engaged in a positive statement of 
his gospel, prompted by the charges, which were liable to be 
brought against it, of being ethically mischievous or ineffective. 
The following section reverts to the thought underlying passages 
like 217 41, The gracious fellowship enjoyed by Christians 
with their God through Jesus Christ (8%5f) sadly reminds him, as 
a warm-hearted Jew, of the fact that the very people who should 
have been in the direct line of this δικαιοσύνη were standing as 
a nation outside it (9!°). How was this unbelief of Israel, the 
ancient people of God, to be reconciled with the justice and 
promises of God? Paul addresses himself { to this problem in 

* For an argument that 352 0.25 originally lay, instead of 127, after 16, and 
was followed by 5-6, see Ὁ, Volter in ZVW. (1909) 180-183. 

+ Cp. Engel’s exhaustive monograph, Der Kampfam Rim vii (1902). 

1 The antinomy of this patriotic outburst (partly due to the feeling that 
the motives of a renegade might be suspected), or divergence into a 
nationalistic outlook, is one of the most characteristic features in Paul. His 


religious philosophy of history is suddenly shot across by a strong personal 
emotion. Hausrath has somewhere remarked that if Paul had not spent 


ROMANS 132 


9-11. He begins by pointing out, as he had already done in 
Gal 47 (cp. Ro 278-29), that even in the OT there were traces 
of God discriminating between the bodily children of the 
patriarchs (9), and that mere physical descent had never 
entitled a Jew to the promises. Besides, he adds (9!*°), nettled 
at the idea of Jewish pride and presumption daring to charge 
God with unfaithfulness or injustice, cannot God do as He 
pleases? Is not His freedom sovereign? ‘Here, to speak 
plainly, Paul’s argument has got into an impasse. He is not 
able to carry it through, and to maintain the sovereign freedom 
of God as the whole and sole explanation of human destiny, 
whether in men or nations” (Denney, ΖΦ ΟΖ. ii. 664). He 
breaks away by quoting from the LXX in order to prove that 
God’s apparently harsh methods with the Jews had a larger end 
in view, viz., the election of a people, Jewish and Gentile, on 
the score of faith, so that the doom.of the Jews was their own 
fault, consisting in a stubborn refusal to enter into God’s greater 
plan (97*9). They are to blame, not God (9%°-102!). He had 
made righteousness by faith open and accessible to all; Israel 
could not plead lack of opportunity and warning. Finally, Paul 
tries to sees a ray of light in the dark tragedy thus enacted. 
Israel’s unbelief, he contends, is only partial (1111) and (1111) 
temporary; it may have a providential purpose (so that the 
Gentiles need not boast over their less favoured neighbours, 
1118-24; cp. Ramsay’s Pauline and other Studies, 1907, 219 f.) 
in stirring them up ultimately (1125) to claim their heritage in 
the messianic kingdom. for God has shut up all under dis- 
obedience, that upon all He may have mercy. ‘The vision of this 
glorious consummation stirs the apostle to an outburst of solemn 
adoration (1159-36), with which the whole section fitly closes.* 


himself in the service of Jesus, he would have shed his blood with some 
other natives of Tarsus on the walls of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; and this passage 
shows how his religious patriotism flickered up inside his Christian outlook, 
even in spite of the treatment he received from Jews and Judaists alike. Cp. 
the present writer’s Paul and Paulinism (1910), pp. 66 f. 

* 1152-88 rounds off 1-11, as well as 9-11 (cp. Biihl in SX., 1887, 295- 
320). What Paul has in mind is not a Judaising tendency among the 
Jewish Christians at Rome in particular, but the general and perplexing 
question of Judaism in relation to the new faith of the gospel. On the 
dialectic of the whole passage, see Gore’s paper in SB. iii. (‘ The argument 
of Rom ix.-xi.’). The literature, up to 1897, is summarised in H. J. 
Holtzmann’s W774. ii. 171 f, 


134 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


Applying (οὖν) the thought of God’s mercy and its obligations 
(1212), Paul now sketches the ethic of Christians as menabers 
of the church (123?!) * and of society, and as members of the 
State (131-7); love is to be the supreme law (138°), and the 
nearness of the end the supreme motive to morality (131!!"14). 

These thoughts of mutual charity and of the impending 
judgment are still before the apostle (14%1°) as he leaves the 
plane of general ethical counsels for that of a special practical 
problem which was vexing the Roman church, viz., the question 
of abstinence or non-abstinence from food offered to idols. 
Sheer anxiety about personal purity (13!514) was leading some f 
to be over-scrupulous at Rome, while the stronger Christians were 
prone to judge such sensitive brothers hastily and harshly, and 
to live without due consideration for weaker members of the 
church who might be offended by their serene indifference to 
such scruples. After laying down the general principle of in- 
dividual responsibility (141-12), in order to rebuke censoriousness, 
he appeals nobly to the majority, who were strong-minded, for 
consideration and charity towards the weaker minority (1418-158). 
Towards the close, the plea broadens into a general { appeal for 
Christian forbearance and patience (1516), which finally streams 
out into an exhortation (1 58:13) to all, Gentile and Jewish Chris- 
tians alike, to unite in praise of God’s mercy to them in Christ. 

In a brief epilogue (1514"), Paul justifies himself for having 
written thus to the Roman Christians, by alleging his apostolic 
vocation ; he tells them (152) of his future plans, which include 
a visit to Rome on his way from Jerusalem to Spain; then with 
an appeal for their prayers and a brief benediction the letter 
closes (1580-89), 

§ 2. The sixteenth chapter. — Special literature: — Kegger- 
mann (de duplici epistolae ad Rom. appendice, 1767); Semler’s 
Paraphrasis, pp. 277-311 ; D. Schulz (SX., 1829, 609 f.) ; Spitta’s 
Ure. iii. 1, pp. 6 f.; Moffatt, AWVZ. 209 f. 


* For παντὶ τῷ ὄντι ἐν ὑμῖν (12%) read π. τῷ ὄντι τι ἐν ὑμῖν (cp. Ac 5¥ 
λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν), with Baljon and Vollgraff (AZzemosyne, 1901, 150). 

+ They were vegetarians and total abstainers. The former practice (cp. 
von Dobschiitz, Ure. pp. 396 f.) was not confined to Jews; the neo- 
Pythagoreans and the Orphic societies favoured it. But the high estimate of 
the sabbath (145) suggests that these weaker brethren were Jewish Christians. 

+ There is no hint that in 15!" Paul is turning (so Paulus and Bertholdt) 
to address the leaders of the church. Paul does not address the ἐκκλησία 
of Rome, and 15'4 implies the general body of the local Christians. 


ROMANS 136 


Since the questions of the nature and needs of the church 
to which the epistle was written depend upon, rather than 
determine, the problem of its literary structure, it will be con- 
venient to discuss the latter first. In order to clear the way, it 
is necessary to recognise the evidence for the hypothesis that 
ch. 16 did not belong to the original epistle; (a) 167-27 re- 
presents a later conclusion, added by some Paulinist editor 
(so Reiche, Kreyhl, Mangold: pp. 44f., Schtrer, Hilgenfeld, 
de Wette, Volkmar, Lucht, Lipsius, von Soden, Pfleiderer, 
Holtzmann, W. Brickner: Chron. pp. 184-185, Weizsicker: 
AA. i. 382, Baljon: pp. 37-40, Volter, Jilicher, R. Scott, 
Corssen, etc.); and (4) 161% is a special note addressed to the 
church of Ephesus. 


(a) 1675-7 is not simply an irrelevant (Bacon, JBZ. 1899, 167-176) but 
an un-Pauline finale, evidently (cp. Jud *f-) modelled on some stereotyped 
Jewish form of benediction (cp. Mangold, pp. 44-81), and breathing the 
atmosphere of the later epistles to Timotheus and Titus (and of Ephesians). 
The addition of such a doxology is as unexampled.in Paul’s correspondence 
as the definition of God as the only wise or e‘ernal and of the scripture as 
frophetic; while the silence upon the μυστήριον during ¢imes eternal outdoes 
expressions like Col 1°8 and is hardly consonant with Ro 1? 321, Corssen 
(ZNW., 1909, 32 f.) probably goes beyond the mark in assigning its origin to 
Marcionitism, but at any rate it does not betray Paul’s mind. 

(ὁ) That Ro 16! contains a note which did not originally belong to 
Paul’s Roman epistle is a widely, though not universally,* accepted hypothesis 
which has been under discussion for nearly a century and a half. Most 
probably the note begins, not with v.® (Schulz, Ritschl, Ewald, pp. 428-430; 
Schiirer, Reuss, Laurent, van Rhijn, Pfleiderer, Mangold: der Rémerbrief, 
pp. 136f.), but with v.! (Eichhorn, Weiss, Renan, Lucht, Lipsius, Volter, 
von Soden, etc.); it ends, not with v.% (Eichhorn, Ewald, Schulz, Reuss, 
Renan, Mangold, Lucht, Weiss, Lipsius, Volter, von Soden, Richter) nor 
even earlier (some critics, ¢.g. Laurent and Hitzig, breaking off at v.¥8 or 
at v.16, as Hausrath, Pfleiderer, Krenkel, Schmiedel), but with v.% (so 
Weizsicker, McGiffert and Jiilicher, Holsten and R. Scott needlessly omitting 
vv.17-20),+ While νν. 231-38 might well go with Ro 15%, it is not Paul’s way to 


* For all that can be said on the other side, consult Schlatter’s article 
(SX., 1886, pp. 587 f.), the discussions of Jacquier (i. pp. 277 f.), and Zahn 
(Zinl. i. 272 f.), the remarks of Sanday and Headlam (of. cét. pp. xciii f., 
416 f.), and Mair in Ax.‘ vii. 75 f. 

t ‘‘It is generally assumed that the men referred to [in vv.!7-”] were 
Jewish Christians, simply because Paul’s antagonists generally belonged to 
that class; but there is nothing in the passage itself to suggest this. The 
plausible and eloquent talk, the love of good feeding, and the implied 
assumption of wisdom, point rather to Greek adventurers, who, when they 
had failed elsewhere, sought to impose on the simplicity of the Christians ” 
(Dr. J. Drummond, p. 352). 


136 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


add salutations after a final Amen, and the passage connects even better with 
161-39. though it may have originally lain (Koennecke, Jiilicher) between ν. 1 
and v.!7. It is needless to regard v. as a marginal note of Paul to ν.} 
(Laurent), or to put } (omitting ἡ γάρ) after 16 (Baijon, pp. 35-36), though v.7 
is more likely to have crept in from the margin (Grotius, Laurent) than to have 
been displaced from after ν. 3 (Blass and Baljon, p. 37). 

Whilst the letter is not expressly directed to Ephesus, there is much in 
its contents which points to that city and church as its original destination. 
When all is said, it is inconceivable that Paul could have intimately known 
so many individuals, and been acquainted with their local circumstances and 
histories, in a church like that of Rome to which he was as yet personally 
a stranger. The tone of Romans militates against such an idea. In Ro 
I-15 the apostle has been writing as a stranger to strangers, without betraying 
—even at points where such a reference would have been telling and suitable— 
any trace of personal friendship with the members of the church or first-hand 
knowledge of their local environment and situation. Occasionally, it is 
true, he does evince some knowledge of the general course of events (e.g. 
in 14-15) within the Roman community, but never more than what would 
percolate to him through the ordinary channels of hearsay and report. 
Such incidental familiarity with the Roman situation by no means implies 
the presence of friends upon the spot who had supplied him with information. 
Upon the other hand, the wealth of individual colour and detail in 16” 
presupposes a sphere in which Paul had resided and worked for a consider- 
able time. He knows the people. He can appeal to them, and even speak 
authoritatively to them. Now, as he wrote probably from Corinth, the only 
other city which answers aptly to this description is Ephesus, where Paul 
had had a prolonged and varied experience ; indeed, several of the names 
in this note are connected more or less directly with that city or with Asia 
Minor: e.g. Epaenetus (ν. ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ᾿Ασίας), and Aquila and Prisca (v.%), 
who were at Ephesus immediately before Romans was written (Ac 1818: 35, 
cp. 1 Co 16), and apparently were there (2 Ti 413) not long afterwards. 
These are the first mentioned in the note, and the reference in 1 Cor. and 
here to the house-church of Aquila and Prisca tells against the likelihood of 
a sudden migration on the part of this devoted pair, 

Furthermore, the sharp warning against heretics and schismatics (νν. 17:39) 
suits Rome at this period less well than Ephesus, where, then as after- 
wards (1 Co 168°, Ac 20”, Apoc 255), trouble of this kind was in the air. 
There is no evidence, even from Romans itself, to indicate the existence of 
διχοστασίαι and σκάνδαλα among the Roman Christians of that day. Con- 
troversy against false teachers is conspicuously absent from Romans, and it is 
extremely difficult to reconcile this outburst of Paul with the traits of Ro 1-15, 
even when we identify the errorists with Greek adventurers rather than Jewish 
Christian antagonists. Least convincing of all is the suggestion (Zahn) that 
Paul’s language here resembles that of Gal 19 5%, Ph 3’; these warnings are 
not genuine prophylactic counsels, inasmuch as the trouble had already begun 
in Galatia—which, as even Zahn admits, was not the case in Rome when the 
apostle wrote— while the intimate relations between Philippi and Paul 
differentiate Philippians materially from an epistle like Romans. Nor, again, 
is it likely that the apostle was vaguely warning the Roman Christians against 


ROMANS 137 


errorists who were already troubling other churches and might at some future 
date make mischief in the capital. The whole point of the counsel is lost if 
the readers did not know the facts and persons in question. How else could 
they mark and turn away from them? In short, the tenor of these words 
marks not an occasion which might possibly arise, but a peril already present, 
just such a situation as was in force in Ephesus, where intrigues and divisions 
(Ac 201%: 33.) were so rife that the apostle was determined to follow his usual 
method, in such cases, of avoiding any personal intercourse with the local 
church. Hence he writes this note of warning, incorporating his counsel in 
Phoebe’s letter, whose lack of address probably indicates that she might visit 
other communities in the district. Set in this light, the letter assumes a 
truly historical place. For while the distant tone of even a passage like 157% 
s'@»ws that the apostle was not on such terms of close intimacy with the 
Roman church as would prompt the pointed language of 161%, these words, 
when addressed to Ephesus, are entirely apposite. This is borne out by the 
consideration, accepted by many critics (so, in addition to those already 
mentioned, Farrar, St. Pau, ch. xxxvii; Laurent, WZ Studien, pp. 32-38; 
Holtzmann, Zzm/. 242-246; Adeney, /V7. pp. 379-380; O. Holtzmann, 
NT Zeitgeschichte, p. 132; Cone, St. Paul, pp. 12f.; Purchas, Johannine 
Problems and Modern Needs, 47 f.; and Haupt, SX., 1900, pp. 147-148), that 
the note is a note of recommendation for Phoebe (ἐπιστολή συστατική) ; for 
Paul would naturally introduce a person to a circle or circles in which he 
exercised some influence. The value of such a recommendation would 
mainly consist in the writer’s title to respect and obedience from those whom 
he addressed, and it is obvicus that this footing of intimacy obtained at 
Ephesus rather than at Rome. 

It may be urged, on the opposite side, that these Christians might have 
migrated to Rome, as there was constant communication between that city 
and the provinces of the empire. In the abstract, this is quite possible. But 
the point is that when Paul wrote Romans, no such migration had occurred. 
All evidence for it is awanting, and the probabilities tell against such a > 
wholesale influx of Paul’s friends to the capital. At a later date, in the 
course of time, it is conceivable that they gradually migrated to Rome in his 
footsteps, as Aquila and Prisca did perhaps. Asiatics constantly betook 
themselves thither, and it is therefore far from remarkable—and by no 
means a final argument against the above theory of Ro 16'-*°—that almost 
all of the names mentioned in this note have been found by archeologists 
(cp. Lightfoot, Phz/ippians, pp. 171f.) within the Roman Corpus /uscrip- 
tionum. Most of the names are fairly common throughout the Roman 
world (cp. Lietzmann, p. 73), whilst half are found in the Greek * Corpus 
Inscriptionum ἴοι Asia Minor (so, ¢.g., Epaenetus, Hermes, and Hermas). 
So far as any weight can be attached to the significance of names like 
Prisca, Ampliatus, Nereus, and Apelles, in the subsequent history of primitive 
Christianity at Rome, it is practically irrelevant to the present question ; 
even though the bearers of these names could be safely identified in every 
case with those mentioned by Paul in this note, it would be a far from 


“In the Ephesian Gnostic Acta Johannis (c. A.D. 160) the house of 
Andronicus (Ro 167’) is one centre of activity. 


138 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


valid inference that because they are found to have sojourned afterwards * 
Rome they must have been there when Paul wrote Romans, or that such a 
combination of names, Greek, Roman, and Jewish, was impossible outside the 
mixed lower population of the capital. 

Gifford (pp. 27-30) regards 168? as part of a second letter written by 
Paul after his release from the first Roman imprisonment. This theory 
(partially anticipating Spitta’s) gets over the difficulty which arises on the 
canonical view, that Paul could hardly have had so many personal friends in 
Rome before he had reached the capital, but it is not more probable than the 
view which has been just outlined. Similarly Erbes (writing in ZA’G., 1901, 
ΡΡ. 224-231) finds in 16!" a note written by Paul to Rome during his last 
voyage as a prisoner, and forwarded by some Ephesian Christians who were 
free (yet cp. 167), in order to let the Roman Christians know of his arrival 
(Ac 2815). These envoys hurried on, undelayed by the exigencies of the 
apostle’s voyage, and were themselves among the persons to be greeted in the 
note. Of allthis, however, there is no hint in the note itself, and the theory t 
is really no improvement on that of Semler, who regarded 16*'6 as designed 
for Paul’s friends outside Rome, to introduce the bearers of the epistle. One 
point of such hypotheses is to explain how the note came to be attached to 
Romans, but this can be done otherwise. Eichhorn (£77/. iii. 243 f.) took 
161-9 as addressed to Corinth, while Schenkel less probably regarded it as 
intended for all the churches which Phcebe was to visit. Still more drastic 
but equally unsatisfying is Ryder’s conjecture (JBZ., 1898, 184-198) that, 
since ἔγραψα ὑμῖν (1515) and ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν (162) have the same 
subject, and since the latter phrase indicates a weightier function than that 
of an amanuensis, chs. 15!-16%4 are a fragment written by Tertius himself not 
later than A.D. 64 before the Neronic persecution. If any theory of the 
epistle’s composition is sought along these lines, Spitta’s is more ingenious 
(see below). 

Once this note is detached from Romans, its date is no longer dependent 
upon that of the larger epistle, except when it is regarded as part of some 
larger Ephesian letter which has been incorporated in the canonical Romans 
(see below). Taken by itself, it offers no secure evidence of its date or 
place of writing, beyond the fact that, when vv.*!-?8 are included in it, 
the mention of Gaius (cp. 1 Co 114) probably points to Corinth as the church 
from which Paul wrote (cp. Cenchrez, 16'). If, as is otherwise likely, the 
immediate destination of the note was Ephesus, with its local circuit of 
churches, the fact of Paul sending greetings and warnings is entirely conson- 
ant with the situation presupposed in Ac 20 (see above). ‘The description 
of Andronicus and Junias as fe//ow-prisoners (16") does not imply that Paul 


* Yet, in the letters subsequently written by Paul from Rome, not one of 
these Christians is ever mentioned. 

+ Ina further study (2ZVW., 1909, 128-147, 195-218, ‘ Zeit und Ziel d. 
Griisse Rom 16° und der Mittheilungen 2 Ti 4**!’), Erbes developes this 
theory by arguing that 2 Ti 415 (ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μου ἀπολογίᾳ οὐδείς μοι παρεγένετο, 
ἀλλὰ πάντες με ἐγκατέλιπον), which contradicts the hypothesis that Paul had 
such loyal supporters in the Roman church as Ro 16'-*” (on the ordinary theory) 
assumes, really refers to his earlier trial in Palestine. 


ROMANS 139 


was in captivity when he wrote the letter,* but merely that these Christians 
like himself, perhaps with himself on some occasion (at Ephesus or elsewhere ; 
cp. 2 Co 11%; Clem. Rom. v.), had been incarcerated. 

The obscurity which besets the editing of the Paulin> epistles for 
canonical purposes prevents us from doing more than conjecture how this 
letter came to be appended to Romans. Perhaps, when the first collection 
was drawn up at Ephesus, this local note was preserved by being put in the 
wake of the larger epistle, especially if the latter was last in the list. Also, 
it contained the names of several who afterwards became prominent in the 
church of Rome (e.g. Ampliatus). 


§ 3. Structure and integrity.—Special literature :—Riggen- 
bach (meue Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1892, 498-525); Lightfoot 
and Hort’s essays in the former’s Avblical Essays (287-374) ; 
Wabnitz (R7QR., 1900, 461-469); Moffatt (ΑΖ. 630 f.); 
Harnack, (ZIV W., 1902, 83 f.,0n 17); Godet, JVZ. i. 395-407 : 
Zahn’s Linl. ὃ 22; R. Steinmetz (ZVW., 1908, 177-189, 
*Text-kritische Untersuchung zu Rom 17); P. Corssen (ZV W,, 
1909, 1-45, 97-102); R. Scott, Zhe Pauline Epistles (1909), 
96 f.; K. Lake (Z2xf." x. 504-525). 

The textual phenomena of 16%-27 (apart from any question 
of their authorship) are sufficient by themselves to start the 
further problem, whether the canonical form of Romans does 
not represent a process of more or less extensive editing. The 
insertion of Ro 161-8 proves that the epistle as it stands did not 
come from Paul and his amanuensis at Corinth, but we cannot 
even be sure that 1--ἰ 588 is equivalent to the original letter. It 
is plain that when the Romans came to be incorporated in the 
Pauline canon, editorial changes were made either then or 
(perhaps also) at a subsequent period. The question is, whether 
such internal phenomena as can be noted (partly from the 
textual condition of the epistle) were due to Paul himself or to 
a later hand. 

The doxology (16%5-?7) is found (see Lucht, of. cé#. pp. 43 f., 49 f.) not 
only (i.) in its present canonical position (so most MSS and vss), but (ii.) either 
after 14“ alone (so L, many cursives, Chrysostom and Theodoret, etc., with the 
Gk. lectionaries), or (iii.) there in addition to its position after 1674 (so AP, 


arm.), whilst (iv.) Fé (with vacant space after 16%) and G (with vacant space 
after 147°) omit it entirely. According to Origen (vii. 453, Lommatzsch),+ 


* As, e.g., Lisco assumes, on his peculiar hypothesis of an imprisonment at 
Ephesus, during which Paul wrote several epistles, including this one ( Verczla 
Sanctorum, 1900). 

+‘ Caput hoc (2.4. 16°”) Marcion, a quo scripture euangelica atque apos- 
tolicz interpoiatze sunt, de hac epistula penitus abstulit : et non solum (hic ?} 


140 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


(i.) was its normal place in his day; but even in some codices which did not 
reflect Marcion’s edition (ii.) was to be found—apparently in consequence of an 
edition having been drawn up for reading in the churches, for which purpose 
the details of 15-16 would be irrelevant. This probably explains the fact 
that the capitulations of Codex Fuldensis and Codex Amiatinus, the major 
(sixth century) MSS of the Vulgate, reflect a similar edition (see, further, de 
Bruyne in Revue Bénédictine, Oct. 1908, 423 f.). But it does not carry us 
very far back; for while an ecclesiastical edition might contain 1-14%3+ 
16-27, it is extremely unlikely (in spite of all arguments to the contrary) that 
Paul would stop at 1475, even if 16-27 were genuine. The latter is not a 
coxology like 118", and it does not lead to 15'* as Eph 37-2! does by closing 
asection. It is one thing that 15-16*4 should be omitted for church-purposes, 
and quite another for the author himself, with the natural sequel 15!-!8 before 
him, to break off at 147° and append the doxology, unless we are to assume 
that there was room for no more on the sheet of papyrus. There is a strong 
inherent improbability, therefore, against all theories which attribute to Paul, at 
any rate, any issue of Romans ceasing with 14%. Even were 16°”? admitted 
to have been written by the apostle, its position after 14” affords no secure 
basis for any theories of an edition of Romans from his own hand which 
ended there. It may be questioned, indeed, whether the reasons usually 
given for an ecclesiastical transference of the doxology to the close of ch. 14 
are adequate. Modern ideas of what an early Christian church would or 
would not have found edifying, are apt to be too narrow. On the same 
principle we should expect to find traces of 1 Co 165} having been put after 
1557-58, and no textual evidence for such a transference is forthcoming. But, 
in the case of Ro τό" 7, such textual evidence is clear and early. The only 
question is, Does Origen’s charge imply that Marcion actually mutilated the 
epistle, or that he found an exemplar in use which did end with 14 + 16-77? 
The former theory depends on the probability that the contents of Ro 15-16 
would prove obnoxious to Marcion; but this hardly appears likely, for the 
OT quotations would not discredit the passage to Marcion, any more than 
they did the gospel of Luke. The latter view assumes that an ecclesiastical 
recension of the epistle existed by the beginning of the second century, 
which omitted 15-16 as less suitable for public reading (so, e.g., Hort and 
Godet) and appended 167-*7to 14. Still, it may be accidental that Clement of 
Alexandria and Origen are the only Ante-Nicene fathers who quote from 
Ro 15-16. The personal contents of 16, like those of 1 Co 16, may have 
prevented any widespread allusions to it. 


hoc, sed et ab (Ὁ in) eo loco ubi scriptum est ome autem, quod non est ex fide, 
peccatum est [2.¢. 1423] usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit. In aliis uero exem- 
plaribus, id est in his que non sunt a Marcione temerata, hoc ipsum caput 
diuerse positum inuenimus: in nonnullis etenim codicibus post eum locum 
quem supra diximus, hoc est, omne autem, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, 
statim cohzerens habetur ez autem qui potens est uos confirmare; alii uero codices 
in fine id, ut nunc est positum, continent.” It is disputed (cp. Zahn’s GA. 
ii. 519 f.) whether ‘dissecuit,’ in this version of Rufinus, means ‘ removed’ 
(=‘abstulit’) or ‘cut up.’ Against Zahn, see Corssen in ZVW., 1909, 13 f., 
who argues for the former (= διέτεμεν). 


ROMANS 141 


The omission of ἐν Ρώμῃ in 17: 35 by G (Gk. and Lat. text), and in τ 
further by g Ambrosiaster (πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ, κλητοῖς alos), 
appears to indicate that these words were absent, if not from an early 
recension of the epistle, at least from a number of early copies (including the 
text used by Origen). As the variation is too significant and widespread 
to have been due to a transcriptional error, it must be explained as due either 
(a) to the same motive as is alleged for the excision of év’E@éow in Eph 1}, 2.6. 
an ecclesiastical or liturgical desire (cp. Tert. adv. Marc. v. 17 ; Ambrosiaster 
on Col 416; Apollonius in Eus. 4. 45. v. 18. 5) to mark the epistle’s catho- 
licity of reference ; or (4) to Marcion’s revision (cp. Corssen, de Bruyne, Sanday 
and Headlam, pp. xcvii-xcviii), the latter motive covering the excision of 
15-16 as well. (a) seems on the whole preferable (so, ¢.g., Steinmetz and 
Schmiedel). Zahn’s contention, that the original text of 17 did not contain 
ἐν Ρώμῃ (so W.'B. Smith, /BZ., 1901, pp. 1-21 ; cp. Harnack, ZVW., 1902, 
83f.), but that 115 did, is based on inadequate textual evidence, as R. Stein- 
metz and Corssen have shown. The former critic agrees with those who 
regard the position of the doxology after 14 as the result of liturgical reading. 
““Man las den Romerbrief bis Kap. 14 und setzte dorthin die Doxologie. 
Man wagte dabei aber nicht, einen so grossen Abschnitt wie Kap. 15 und 16 
einfach ganz zu beseitigen, wie man das mit den Worten ἐν Ρώμῃ in 17 und 
in 11° ohne Bedenken tat” (ZV W., 1908, 188). Corssen’s intricate arguments 
lead him to refer all the phenomena of the shorter recension of Romans to 
Marcion. A further conjecture (c) is that the words were omitted (together 
with 15-16) in a special edition of the epistle issued by Paul himself (so variously 
from Riickert to Lightfoot). This edition-hypothesis (Renan, iii. pp. [ΧΗ] f., 
461 f.; Sabatier, Denney, etc.) assumes usually that 1-14 +16!” represented 
the edition sent to Ephesus, whilst 1-14 + 167!-*4 and 1-11 +15 were copies of 
the circular forwarded to the churches of Thessalonika and Rome respectively. 
Spitta carries forward this conjecture in Ure. iii. 1 (1901), holding acztzus 
guam uerius (cp. Bahnsen in PAZ, 1902, 331-336) that 121-157: 161-20 
represent a short letter written after Ac 2889 (A.D. 63-64) during a tour among 
the Gentile Christian churches, while 118-111}0.- 1514-33 were written earlier 
(at the crisis over the Council of Jerusalem) for believing Jews, to justify the 
Gentile mission, and re-adapted by the apostle for Gentile-Christian readers 
with the addition, ¢.g., of 1117 and 1588, Lightfoot’s simpler view posited 
a double recension, the original draft (1-167) being addressed to the Roman 
church, the second (omitting ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 17 © and 15-16, but adding 162-27) 
being designed for a wider circle; subsequently the doxology was transferred 
to its present position in the original and earlier recension, represented by the 
canonical epistle. Attempts have been made on broader lines to disentangle 
in whole or part a larger letter to Ephesus, ¢.g. in 12-14+16 (Straatman, 
7TT., 1868, 25 f.), 12-15°+16*™ (Schultz, Jahrd. fiir deutsche Theol., 1876, 
104 f.), and 9-11 +16 (Weisse’s Beztrage, 46 f.); cp. J. Weiss in 7ZZ., 1893, 
395, and 7AS¢. 182-184. None of these, however, works out at all well in 
detail. 

Apart from the doxology (16”-*’), when a note to Ephesus is found in 
161-3 it becomes superfluous to discuss the theory, once held by Baur, 
Schwegler (Δ ΜΖ. ii. pp. 123 f.), and some others (recently, W. B. Smith, 
JBL., 1901, 129-157) that 15-16 are totally, or even partially (Lucht), 


[42 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


spurious, as well as composite.* There is little or nothing in 1§ to justify 
the supposition that it was not composed by Paul (see on this especially 
Mangold, pp. 81 f.); the bold expressions of 158 16. are as likely to have 
come from the apostle as from any one else, and none of the other points 
alleged, ¢.g. by Lipsius, is decisive against the Pauline authorship (cp. HV7. 
630). The close connection of 15 with 14 tells against the view (Schenkel) 
that τῷ represents a postscript to the original letter. The balance of 
probability is upon the whole in favour of the hypothesis that 1}--ἰ 5} 
represents substantially the original epistle; that 16'-* was added to it, 
when the Pauline canon was drawn up at Ephesus; that 1675-7 represents 
an editorial climax to this composite production; and that the omission 
of ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 17 and the relegation of 16-27 to a place after 14 were due 
to subsequent liturgical procedure. 

Evanson’s arguments against the Pauline authorship (Déssonance of the 
Four Generally Received Evangelists*, 1805, 306-312) were as unable to 
attract the attention of scholars as those independently advanced by Bruno 
Bauer half a century later (A7ztzk der paulin. Briefe, 1852, iii. 47-76; 
Christus und die Caesaren, 1877, 371-380). The denial of Paul’s existence, 
which is bound up with such theories, was developed by Loman in his 
*Questiones Pauline’ (771, 1882-1883, 1886), and the fool’s cap was 
placed unconsciously on them by Steck’s attempt (see above, p. 73) to 
show that Komans depended on Seneca, as well as upon Philo, the 
Assumptio Mosis, and Fourth Esdras. Van Manen’s arguments answet 
themselves; if the methods he employs (cp. 3.82. 4127-4145) are valid, 
then not merely biblical but literary critics must allow that their occupation 
is gone. The reproductiun of similar views by W. B. Smith (cp. A/. i. 
309-334) led to a patient and careful refutation by P. W. Schmiedel 
(A. i. 532-552), after or against which there is little to be said. For other 
criticisms in detail, see R. J. Knowling’s 7he Witness of the Epistles, pp. 133f., 
and Clemen’s /azlus, i. pp. 85 f. The futility of these wholesale theories 
was soon felt by Vélter, who attempted to posit an authentic epistle underneath 
extensive interpolations, separating the original genuinely Pauline letter 
(12: Sb-7- 8-17 1-12, 15-19, 31 1-18. 16-28 po_73, 141. 18 1 ς14-16. 2-83 7621-2) written 
to the Gentile Christian church of Rome, from interpolations by an editor 
who sought to Hellenise Paul’s teaching with the help of Stoic and Platonic 
ideas derived in part from the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, and Seneca, and 
to controvert not Jewish Christians, but Jews of his own day. In addition 
to this editor’s contributions, further glosses are visible in 214 10 38-6 725» 
11}1πδῦ 757-13 17-244 767-2. 25-27 from the pen of one who also omitted ἐν Ρώμῃ 
in 17 } in order to generalise the epistle for the use, primarily, of the church 
at Ephesus. 

While the criteria for such hypotheses are too subjective to deserve 
attention, the canonical text of the epistle here and there has been more 
justly suspected of incorporating glosses. Thus (4) the awkward construction 
of 2516. where v.!® seems to follow vv.!*!8 rather than 8 or the whole 


* R. Scott (of. ett, 237-246) makes 12-15 practically all non-Pauline, 
while the original epistle (1-11+15”°*) is regarded as the slow elaboration 
of two or three distinct essays (¢.g. 1-5, 6-8, 9-11). 


ROMANS 143 


paragraph, has suggested (cp. Lietzmann’s note, pp. 14-15) either that 11° 
represent a marginal gloss (so Wilke, de Neutest. Rhetorik, pp. 216-228 ; 
Laurent, W7 Studien, 17-19, 32 f.; Blass; Volter, 141-142; J. Weiss,* 
Beitrage zur paul. Rhetorik, 56-57), or less probably that v.!® should be 
taken as an interpolation (Weisse, Baljon, pp. 4-6), if not put after v.!? 
(Michaelis, Wilke, Wassenbergh) or v.* (Hitzig). Otherwise ν. 8 might be 
a marginal insertion of Paul (Eichhorn), though not the later addition of 
an editor (from Ja 1%; so Weisse, Michaelis adding 11, and van Manen 
adding 15:15), (6) 57 is a natural parenthesis rather than a break in the 
argument, and need not be taken as a gloss (as by Semler, Weisse, Michelsen, 
Lipsius, Koennicke, and Jiilicher=”"), or as two (Naber, Mnemosyne, 1881, 
287 f.). Nor (c) is 5!*” καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος to be suspected as a 
scribal gloss (van Manen, Straatman, Baljon), though 515-15 (Weisse, Beztrage, 
Pp. 35; Volter, vf. cz. pp. 147f., for exegetical reasons) has an illogical 
appearance.t (d@) 7° (dpa οὖν αὐτὸς ἐγὼ τῷ μὲν vot δουλεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ, 
τῇ δὲ σαρκὶ νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας) may readily have been misplaced by a scribe 
from its true place before v.*4 (Venema, Wassenbergh, Keil, van Hengel, 
Lachmann, Koennicke, B/7. xil. I. 24-25; Biass, Lietzmann, etc.) ; 
to delete it entirely (Michelsen, Reiche, Weisse, Baljon, pp. 17-18; 
Volter, pp. 157-8) is to leave no room for an explanation of how it ever 
came to be inserted.$ (¢) As the διὰ παντός of 11°? is, strictly speaking, 
inconsistent with the thought of what follows, it has been conjectured 
(e.g. by Holsten, ZW7., 1872, 455; Michelsen, Rovers, van Manen, 
and Lipsius) that this passage is a marginal gloss written, like 1 Th 2/6, 
after the fall of Jerusalem, to emphasise the final exclusion of the Jews from 
the messianic kingdom. Against this it is rightly urg-d that the metaphor 
of v." would follow awkwardly after that of v.®. But surely not more so 
than that of v.® in its present site. (7) Apart from those who reject the 
entire chapter as un-Pauline, various critics have felt obliged to regard 
one or two passages in 15! as later glosses; Straatman, ¢.g., deletes 
WG. rare swan). Manen,. v.18) 919 26280 M88 5 ΠΟΘΙ, τν τὴν (altering 
ἔχων to ἔχω in >) and Lipsius, νν. 90. 300, 3-24. The reasons for such 
a hypothesis do not seem justified by literary or historical criticism (cp. 
Feine’s Rémerbrie/, 138 f.). Thus a mission to Illyria is quite within the 
bounds of probability, during one of Paul’s residences in Macedonia ; and 


* Adding 27 as another gloss from the same hand, since the γάρ of 38 
reaches back to 25, while the οὖν of 76 does not connect well with the context. 

+ The same critics, with Michelsen, find 6'4- an interpolated gloss, with 
as little reason as leads them (with Volkmar and Baljon, pp. 14-15) to 
delete 719-9, 

t To suppose (with V6lter, p. 226) that some scribe, failing to grasp 
the connection between 7%* and 81, added this recapitulatory comment as 
a bridge, is surely a sour de force. See Jiilicher’s note (S7. ii. p. 48), and 
Clemen’s Lznheitlichkeit, pp. 84 f. (cp. his Pazlus, i. 99-100). On the 
other hand, rots στοιχοῦσιν (4!) is plainly an instance of textual primitive 
corruption, while οὔτε δυνάμεις (838) must precede logically (as in K L, εἴς.) 
οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα κτὰᾺ., unless it is to be deleted (as by van Hengel, Baljon, 
Tholuck, Koennicke, and others). 


144 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


the silence of Galatians does not necessarily preclude some preaching at 
Jerusalem, even granting that Jerusalem here should not be taken in a 
colloquial and geographical sense. At all events it is hardly fair to object 
to the one statement because it conflicts with the silence, to the other be- 
cause it seems to disagree with the statements, of Acts (cp. Clemen, 7ZZ., 
1902, 230f.). The expression (μεν preached the gospel, v.™) is rhetorical ; 
Paul, as often, is using a natural hyperbole (Curtius, SBBA., 1893, 929, 
quotes an apt verbal parallel from Aristoph. Avzgh/s, 642 f.), and 7° is not 
inconsistent with *, for the apostle’s visit to Rome (cp. 111.13) is as much 
for his own sake as for theirs; in any case Rome is to him but the point 
of departure for a further tour, not the object of independent mission-work. 
Finally, as even Volter (p. 178) admits, there is nothing suspicious about 
the reference to this Spanish mission ; after his death it would have hardly 
been attributed to him. 

Such detailed difficulties in the contexture of the epistle do not amount to 
any proof that it is a patchwork of different writings. Its composition must 
have taken some time. ‘‘ We must try to comprehend the position of such 
a man when, perhaps in the midst of his handicraft, he dictated on difficult 
matters in which his thoughts pressed one upon another, in order to judge 
truly to what degree he would be likely to fail in good connexion and orderly 
progress of thought” (P. W. Schmiedel, /77., 1903, 549). This considera- 
tion, taken along with the internal evidence, is enough to disprove any rigid 
theory of heterogeneous composition. Paul was many-sided, and more than 
one side of his nature came out in this epistle, a fact which is missed when 
attempts are made to trace a rectilinear dialectic throughout the successive 
chapters. 


§ 4. Date and aim.—When 151 is accepted as genuine, the 
date of the epistle is fixed towards the close of Paul’s mission in 
Achaia (Ac 20%"); it was written from Corinth,* on the eve 
of his departure for Jerusalem. The collection, which forms so 
prominent a feature of the Corinthian correspondence, is now 
finished, and Paul is on the point of conveying the money to the 
Palestinian Christians on whose behalf it has been raised. The 
precise year depends on the view taken of the apostolic chronology 
(see above, p. 62); most editors fix on+a.D. 58; but the general 
period of the epistle’s composition is at any rate plain, as well 
as its relative position after the Corinthian correspondence. 

The purpose of the letter is less plain, and any character- 
isation of it depends on the relative importance assigned to its 
general and its specific elements. Those who emphasise the 
former, view the epistle as a compendium of the Pauline gospel 
(so from Luther, Melanchthon, Reiche, and de Wette to Weiss 

* Paulus inferred from 1519 that it was composed in some town of Illyrikum. 


The facilities of communication point to Corinth, however (cp. Paley’s 
Horae Patlinae, ed. Birks, 1852, pp. 8f.). 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 145 


and Godet), but the absence of definite teaching upon such 
questions as the Lord’s Supper, the church, eschatology, and the 
resurrection, is sufficient to disprove the theory. Others find 
a much more specific and personal object in the epistle. But 
its aim is not simply to secure in the church of Rome a vantage- 
ground for further propaganda in the West (so, eg., Schott, 
Beyschlag, and Riggenbach, exaggerating the weight of passages 
like 11° and 154), much less to justify Paul against a supposed 
charge of neglecting so important a church (Hofmann); it is 
rather to state, for the primary benefit of the Roman Christians, 
the χάρισμα πνευματικόν which Paul was conscious of possessing 
in his knowledge of the gospel, and which he imparts in writing, 
ἀπὸ μέρους, ὡς ἐπαναμιμνήσκων ὑμᾶς διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι 
ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (1515, cp. 1115). The feature of the gospel which 
is chiefly before his mind is its universal range, as the divine 
δύναμις εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι. It is a gospel for ra 
ἔθνη (cp. 15 1516 etc.), and as such it involves a supersession of 
Jewish praxis and principle. This outlook explains the course of 
118_7 186; o-11 falls into its proper place, not as the centre and 
pith (Baur) of the letter, but as a specific, historical application 
of the principles already laid down in 1-8, 

Baur argues that Paul would not have devoted so important 
a part of his letter as 9-11 to the problem of Judaism in relation 
to Hellenism, “had he not had close at hand some special 
material reason for doing so, and this was afforded him by the 
circumstances of the local church” (/au/, i. 329), but the 
problem had been raised by his past experience in the long 
mission throughout Asia and Greece. It is not even enough to 
argue that the object of Romans was to counteract the Jewish 
Christian propaganda in the Roman church (so Weizsicker) ; 
one would expect in this event to find the christological problem 
more prominent. It is more plausible to detect the conciliatory 
motive (Pfleiderer) of reconciling the Gentile Christian majority 
with the Jewish Christian minority, by expounding more fully 
Paul’s gospel as a deeper and broader exposition of the faith 
than either party had yet reached. This aspect is enforced by 
those who (like Bleek, Hodge, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and Holsten) 
variously lay stress upon the irenical tone of Paul’s dialectic. 
A more polemical view is taken by scholars like Aberle (Z7»/, 
205f.) and Feine, who find that Paul is opposing unbelieving 
Jews, though it is not easy to see why he should do so in an 

10 


146 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


epistle to Rome especially, and in an epistle primarily addressed 
to Gentile Christians. Judaism as the enemy is the view aiso 
underlying both Ewald’s and Grafe’s theories ; the former regards 
the epistle (culminating in 13}) as an attempt to disentangle 
Christianity from any compromising association with the Judaism 
whose fate he saw impending at the hands of the Roman 
power; Grafe (of. cit. pp. 54f.), on the other hand, hears in the 
epistle a desire to establish Paul’s free gospel against the 
influences of local Jews who were corrupting the Roman 
Christians with legalistic sympathies. 

These conflicting or complementary views open up the 
intricate problem of the readers to whom the epistle was 
addressed. Here we face apparently diverging statements, 
some of which imply Gentile Christians, while others point to 
Jewish Christians. The former passages include 15 18 1118 and 
1515f- which are perfectly explicit; they reckon the Roman 
Christians as among the Gentiles, and none of the counter- 
references is strong enough to overbear the force of such 
allusions. The use of the first person plural in 49 4! and 9), 
which seems to rank Paul with a Jewish Christian audience, 
means no more than the similar allusion in 1 Co τοὶ; and the 
connection of his readers with the Law in 7!° etc. is on all-fours 
with the tone of the argument in Gal 4! (to Gentile Christians). 
ne obscurity which wraps the origin of the Roman church, or 
churches, prevents us from checking the internal evidence of the 
epistle by any external traditions of historical value, but the 
probabilities are that a Jewish Christian nucleus was surrounded 
by a Gentile Christian majority, perhaps drawn in part from the 
local proselytes.* Thus the view that the Roman church was 
predominantly Gentile Christian (so, ¢.g., Schott, Weizsicker, 
Pfleiderer, Schurer, von Soden, Feine, Jiilicher, Denney, Belser, 


* “Τῆς labours of St. Paul himself and his associates, first in Asia Minor 
and then in Macedonia and Greece, must have started many little waves, as 
it were, of Christian movement, some of which could hardly fail to reach as 
far as Rome. The Christianity they carried would as a matter of course be 
the Christianity of St. Paul himself . . . and if it found at Rome a pre- 
existing Christianity of a more Jewish type, the old might either pass into the 
new or remain unchanged. There was no necessity or likelihood that any 
violent antagonism should arise between them, unless a fresh element should 
be introduced in the shape of Jewish emissaries deliberately sent from the 
East to counterwork Paul” (Hort, Xomans and Ephesians, p. 16). Of such 
a counter-movement there is no clear evidence in the epistle. 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 147 


Peake, and especially Hoennicke, JC. 161f.) is, so far as the 
evidence of the epistle goes, preferable to the hypothesis that 
it was predominantly Jewish Christian (so, e.g., Baur, Lipsius, 
Reuss, and Zahn). There is no topic in the letter which can be 
said to be foreign to the interests of the former, and no method 
of argument which can be pronounced off the line of legitimate 
appeal to them. Paul may have had in mind a Gentile 
Christian community in which there was a minority (=the weak 
of 14)-151%) of Jewish Christians (cp. E. Riggenbach’s essay 
in SK., 1893, 649-678), probably including a number of 
proselytes,* but the primary aim of the writer is not to adjust 
the relations of these parties (so especially Holsten and 
Hilgenfeld). This would be to make 14!15!8 the climax of 
the foregoing pages, instead of a supplement to them. The 
purpose of the apostle is rather to re-state, in the light of his 
experience during the long mission now closing, and in view 
of the fresh propaganda which he contemplated in the West, the 
principles of his gospel for the Gentiles in its relation to 
Judaism. All he knew of the internal condition of the Roman 
church was from hearsay. He did not write on account of any 
special trouble there, and it is artificial to suppose, with 
Pfleiderer and others, that he keeps one eye on the Jewish 
Christian and another upon the Gentile Christian portion of his 
audience. Romans is more of a treatise than any other of Paul’s 
epistles. Its structure is not determined by any local questions 
suggested to him, and, unlike all the preceding letters which are 
extant, this is not addressed to a church which he had founded. 
It is not written in the air. Paul is not composing in order to 
ciear up or to express his own mind. But neither is he writing 
with a direct reference to the Roman Christians at every turn. 
“The letter does not attack Jewish Christianity, but Judaism 
—the Israelitish religion—standing over against Christianity as 
a distinct, independent entity which casts its shadow over the 
path of the new religion. ‘Though he formulates objections in 
order to refute them, we must not imagine that persons pressing 
such objections really existed in the Roman church; St. Paul 


* Beyschlag’s arguments in favour of a proselyte-element have been 
independently worked out by Volter in his Dze d/teste Predigt aus Rom (1908). 
Kattenbusch (das Afost. Symbol, ii. 450) rightly observes that Romans is 
inexplicable apart from the fact that the majority of its readers were 


nriginally proselytes. 


148 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


simply adopts the customary style for such discussions,—a style 
which was especially in accord with the lively genius of one so 
disposed to dialectic development of his thought” (von Soden, 
INT. 80-81). ‘If Paul was going to write to the Romans at all, 
no matter from what immediate impulse,—though it should only 
have been to announce his approaching visit,—it would be 
natural that his communication, in proportion as he realised the 
place and coming importance of the church at Rome, should 
assume a catholic and comprehensive character” (Denney, 
EGT. ii. 569). Psychologically, the breadth and general scope 
of the epistle are thus intelligible. A partial analogy in literature 
is furnished by Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, 
which were begun as a private letter to a gentleman in Paris. As 
Burke went on, however, the matter so grew and gained upon 
him that its importance and bulk demanded wider consideration 
than could be given in a mere letter. He therefore widened his 
scope, but adhered to the semi-private form of address. “I 
wish,” he says at one point to his correspondent, “to com- 
municate more largely what was at first intended only for your 
private satisfaction. I shall still keep your affairs in my eye, 
and continue to address myself to you. Indulging in the 
freedom of epistolary intercourse, I beg leave to throw out my 
thoughts, and express my feelings, just as they arise in my mind, 
with very little attention to formal method.” 


§ 5. Traces in early Christian literature. — Echoes of Romans occur in 
1 Peter, and probably in Hebrews and James as well. Like 1 Cor., it was 
undoubtedly used by Clement of Rome, as is plain from the following 
passages, amongst others :—17=xxxvi. 2, ἡ ἀσύνετος καὶ ἐσκοτωμένη διάνοια 
(cp. li. 5, Tas ἀσυνέτους καρδίας), 1°°-82=xxxv, 5-6, 24%=xlvii. 7, 479=1. 6-7 
(perhaps), 6'=xxxiii. 1 (cp. context), 9‘8=xxxii. 2, and 13!=Ixi. 1. It is 
thus a component part of the Pauline group which Clem. Rom. proves to 
have been in circulation by the last quarter of the first century. The echoes 
in Ignatius are indubitable, also, if less distinct. Καινότης ζωῆς (64) 
recurs in Zph. xix. 3, 154 underlies Swyrn. i. 1 (ἐκ γενοῦς Aaveid κατὰ 
σάρκα, υἱὸν Θεοῦ κατὰ θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν, cp. Eph. xviii. 2), and striking 
coincidences occur in Magn. vi. 2 (=61"), ix. 1 (=75), 7 γα. ix. 2 (=8"), 
Eph. ix. (=9") etc. Polykarp’s knowledge of the epistle is fairly certain 
(cp. iii, 3=13°, x.=12!), though twice the allusion might be to 2 Cor. 
instead (vi. 2=14"* 4 ep. 2 Co. 5”, and. iv, 1=13" 6" cp,:2 ΟὉ 6. othe 
familiarity of Justin with Romans is patent ; cp. ¢.g. Dial. xxiii. =45", xxvii. 
=32-17, xliv.=9’, xlvii.=2* etc. (with “4291. i. 40=10)8), as is that of 
Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christ. xiii. =121, xxxiv.=17”). On the other hand, 
κολλώμενοι ἀγαθῷ (v. 2) is too slender a basis to establish a use of the epistle 
12°) in the Didaché, and the solitary glimpse in Hermas (Mand. x. ii. 5= 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 149 


8-37) proves next to nothing. The epistle appears, however, in the Canon 
of Marcion and in the Muratorian Canon; while it is expressly cited by 
Irenzeus (quoting an elder, adv. her. iii. 16. 3=11 9° etc.), Clem. Alex. 
(Paedag. 70=11* etc.), and Tertullian (e.g. adv. Praxeam, xiii.=17 9°), 
According to Hippolytus, it was employed also by several Gnostic or semi- 
Gnostic sects, including the Ophites or Naasseni, and by the Valentinians 
(cp. Iren. adv. haer. i. 8. 3, i. 3. 4). 


(E) COLOSSIANS. 


LITERATURE. — (a) Editions — Bugenhagen (1527); Melanchthon’s 
Enarratio epist. Pauli ad Coloss. (1559); ΝΥ. Musculus (Comm. in epp. ad 
Phil. Col. etc., 1865) ; J. Grynzeus (Zxplicatio, 1585) ; R. Rollock (Edinburgh, 
1600) ; Thomas Cartwright (London, 1612); Bishop Davenant (Cambridge, 
1627); P. Bayne (London, 1634); N. Byfield (London, 1649); G. Calixtus 
(Exposetio litt. in Eph. Col. etc. 1664-6) ; J. H. Suicer (27 epzst. S. Paulé 
ad Col. comment. crit. exeget. theol. 1669)* ; J. Alting, Analysts exegetica in 
Ep. ad Coloss, (Amsterdam, 1687); P. J. Spener’s Erklarung (1706); 
Hazevoet’s Verklaering (Leyden, 1720); S. van Til (Amsterdam, 1726) ; 
Roell, Zpistole Pauli ad Coloss. exegests (1731); Baumgarten’s Auslegung 
(Halle, 1767); J. D. Michaelis* (1769); G. C. Storr’s Dissertatio exegetica 
(Tiibingen, 1783-7, Eng. tr. Edin. 1842)"; F. Junker, Héstorisch-hrit. und 
philolog. Comm. (Miinchen, 1828)*; J. F. von Flatt’s Vorlesungen (1829) ; 
C. F. Bahr, Comment. tiber d. Brief P. an die Kol. mit Berticksichtigung 
a. altern u. neuern Ausleger (Basel, 1833); Mannheim (1833); Steiger, der 
Brief Pauli an die Colosser ; Uebersetzung, Erklarung, einleitende u. epi- 
hritische Abhandlungen (Erlangen, 1835) ; Bohmer ( 7heo/. Auslegung, Breslau, 
1835); Huther (1841); Dan. Wilson (1845); Baumgarten-Crusius (1847) ; 
de Wette? (1847); Wiesinger (in Olshausen’s Comm. 1850); Bisping’s 
Erklarung (1855); Ewald (1857); Ellicott (1857, etc.); Dalmer (Gotha, 
1858) ; Messner’s Zrklarung (1863); Meyer® (1865); Bleek’s Vorlesungen 
siber die Briefe an die Col., den Philemon, u. die Epheser (ed. Nitzsch, 1865) ; 
Schenkel (in Lange’s Bzde/-Werk?, 1867; Braune (zdzd., Eng. tr. 1870); 
Hofmann (1870 f.); A. Klopper (1882)*; J. Eadie? (Edin. 1884)*; 
J. Li. Davies? (Zph. Col. and Philemon, 1884); J. A. Beet (1890) ; -Light- 
foot® (1890 and later) *; Oltramare, Commentatre sur les ép. de S. Paul aux 
Col. Eph. et ἃ Philémon (1891 f.)*; H. C. G. Moule (Cambridge Bible, 
1893); von Soden? (HC. 1893) ; Wohlenberg (in Strack-Zéckler’s Comm. 
1895); Findlay (με εξ Commentary, 1895)*; T. K. Abbott (JCC. 1897) ; 
G. W. Garrod (1898) ; Maurer? (1900); Haupt (— Meyer’, 1902)*; 6. C. 
Martin (CB., n. d.); Peake* (ZEGZ. 1903); P. Ewald (ZX. 1905); 
Lueken? (SV7. 1907); J. M. S. Baljon (1907); A. L. Williams (CG7. 
1907); P. Bijsterveld (de briev van P. aan de Col. (1908); G. Alexander 
(New York, 1910). 

(ὁ) Studies—against the standard treatise of H. J. Holtzmann, A7vi¢zk der 
Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe (1872*), see J. Koster, de echthetd van da 
brieven aan de Kolossers en aan de Ephesiérs (1877) and von Soden (7,7, 
1885, pp. 320f., 407f., 672 f.). Partly on Holtzmann’s lines, J. Weiss (7ZZ., 
1900, 553-556); Soltau (SX., 1905, 521-562, ‘die urspriingliche Gestalt 


I50 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


des Kolosserbriefs ), and Michelsen (77., 1906, 159 f., 317 f.); (i.) against the 
Pauline authorship:—Baur’s Pau/us, 417 f. (Eng. tr. ii. 1-44) ; Schwegler, 
NZ. ii. 325 f. ; Planck (Zheol. Jahrb., 1847, 461 f.); Mayerhoff, der Brief 
an die Kolosser mit vornehenlicher Berticksichtigung der Pastoralbriefa 
(1838) ; Hoekstra (77., 1868, 559 f.) ; Hilgenfeld (Z/V7, 1870, pp. 245 f.); 
Weizsacker (4A, ii. 240 f.); Briickner (Chron. 41 f., 257 f.); Cone, Zhe 
Gospel and tts Interpretations (pp. 249-255). (ii.) for :—Schenkel (Chréstus- 
bild d. Apfostel, pp. 83-86); Renan (iii., ix.-xii.); Hort, Judatstic Chris- 
tianity (pp. 116 f.); Sanday in Smith’s D&. i. 624-631 (1893); Weiss 
(A/T. i. 371-377); Sabatier’s Paul (pp. 229 f.) and in ZSR. iii. 272-275, 
McGiffert (44. 366-374); E. H. Hall (Pagias, 1899, 283 f.); Jiilicher 
(4 8ὲ. i. 860 f.) ; Pfleiderer, Urc.? i, 258 f. ; Clemen, Paulus, i. pp. 122 f. ; 
Moffatt, HNZ. 214 f. ; Bacon, Story of St. Paul (1905), 303 f., 330 ἢ ; 
Jacquier in Vigoroux’ DA. ii. 866-876. (iii.) general:—C. G. Hofmann 
(Jntroductio in lect. epistolae P. ad Coloss. 1739) ; Storr (dissertatio in epist. 
P. ad Coloss. 1786); Boehmer’s /sayoge (Berlin, 1829); L. Montet, Jtro- 
ductio in epistolam ad Coloss. (Montauban, 1841) ; J. Wiggers, ‘das Verhilt- 
niss des Ap. Paulus zu der christlichen Gemeinde in Kol.’ (SK., 1838, pp. 
165 f.); Schenkel (BZ. iii. 566-571); J. O. Ε΄ Murray (DB. i. 454-456) ; 
K. J. Miiller, Ueber α΄. Gedankengang d. Apostels Paulus in Kol. (1905); 
M. Rohr, Les épitres de Papétre Paul aux Col. et aux Eph. (1905). (iv.) on 
the errorists :—Schneckenburger’s Ueber das Alter d. suid. Proselyten-Taufe, 
nebst einer Betlage tiber die Irriehrer zu Colossae (Berlin, 1828); Rheinwald 
(de pseudo-doctoribus Colossensibus, 1834); Osiander in 726. Zettschrift 
(1834), pp. 96 f.; J. Barry (/es faux docteurs de Colosses, Montauban, 1846) ; 
Hilgenfeld (ZW7. xiii. 233 f.); Neander’s Planting of Christian Church 
i. 219 f., M. Dibelius, Die Getsterwelt tm Glauben des Paulus (1909), 151-155. 


ν 1. Analysis.—Like Romans, this epistle was written to a 
church which the author only knew by hearsay. Paul had neither 
founded nor even visited (1* 7-® 38 21) the Christian community at 
Colossé, a Phrygian township on the left bank of the Lycus; 
but, as their founder, Epaphras (17 412), was probably a disciple 
of his, and certainly a Gentile Christian like themselves (12) 27 
218 4llf.) the apostle evidently regarded the Colossian Christians 
as belonging to his mission-sphere. His authority to address 
them was plainly unquestioned, and the letter shows traces of a 
warm, mutual interest (43:18), 

After a brief greeting, in which he associates Timotheus with 
himself (12-2), he assures them of his constant thankfulness for 
their fine Christian character (1%), and of his equally constant 
prayers for their steady growth in the knowledge and service 
(1%) of God who had redeemed them by Jesus Christ, the head 
alike of the creation (11517) and of the church (118-28), according 
to Paul’s gospel, at any rate (172°). To prevent them and others 
like them in Asia Minor from being misled on this cardina/ 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 15) 


matter (215), he reiterates the need of adherence to the simple 
and sufficient faith of Christ (26-),* as opposed to any extraneous 
theosophy and ritual system (2!) with ascetic obligations. 
The risen life with Christ is above either such severities (22%) or 
the lax conduct which they vainly oppose. This leads Paul to 
sketch the true Christian ethic in general (35%), negatively t and 
positively; also specifically for wives and husbands (31819), 
children and parents (320-21), slaves and masters (3?2-4!). With 
some brief words of general counsel (47°) and personal details 
(4717), the letter then closes. ἢ 


Colossians is an example of great prose being addressed to a very little 
clan. Colossé was a second-rate township, inferior to its (418) powerful neigh- 
bours Laodicea and Hierapolis ; and the local church was of no importance 
in early Christianity. The occasion of the epistle was the arrival of 
Epaphras (18) with news of the church, which was in some perplexity over 
a specious theosophy recently promulgated, and which perhaps—if we are 
to read between the lines—had expected or did expect a visit from Paul (215). 
At the moment he is imprisoned § and cannot come to them, nor does he ap- 
pear to anticipate any opportunity for a visit ;|| the reasons of this they are 
to learn orally from Tychicus and Onesimus (47-*), who bring the epistle. 
All he can do personally is to write. The letter reciprocates their prayers 
(1° καὶ ἡμεῖς), assures them of his keen interest and pride in them (215), and 
invites their interest in his own mission-work (48); but its dominant aim is to 
restate the absolute adequacy of Jesus in relation to the world and to the 
church, to show how faith in him requires no outside philosophy or esoteric 
cult in order to perfect itself, and to expose the absurdity (xevn ἀπάτη) of any 
mystical supplement to the Christian experience of Jesus as redeemer. 
Apparently Epaphras and his fellow-teachers were unable to cope with the 
ramifications of the local theosophy, and Paul interposes with this letter on their 
behalf. The predominance of abstract teaching over personal reference in it 


* The point of the apparently irrelevant clause περισσεύοντες ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ 
(27) is very fine ; to be thankful to God for all he has done and is to us in 
his Son, involves a thoughtful and hearty realisation of these benefits which 
is the best antidote to any hesitation about his power of meeting the needs 
of the soul. Gratitude to God, as Paul implies, means a firmer grasp of God 
(cp. 4). 

+ With Col 3" contrast the tone of the thanksgivings in Plutarch’s A/arzus, 
46, § 1; Diog. Laert. i. 33, and the Talmudic-Berachoth (‘‘ Rabbi Judah 
taught that a man should say every day, Blessed be God for not creating me 
a pagan, nor foolish, nor a woman”). 

$ Does the phrase, περὶ οὗ ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς (419), refer to a letter previously 
sent to the Colossians by Paul, or simply to oral instruction ? 

§ This would not necessarily follow from 4'° (ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου), which 
might mean no more than Ro 167, but 48 (δέδεμαι) puts it beyond doubt. 

|| Epaphras, too, is unable to return, but the Colossians and the other locaf 
Christians are not to fear he has lost his interest in them (4!*"!*), 


[52 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


is natural when one recollects that the readers were not directly converts οἱ 
the apostle, and that the letter was intended to be supplemented by Tychicus’ 
oral information (47) upon the writer’s situation and prospects. 


§ 2. Odject.—The dangers felt by Paul in the situation of the 
Colossian Christians were due to something at once more serious 
and definite than mere shortcomings of the practical religious 
life. The presence of errorists with semi-Gnostic tendencies is 
revealed by the warnings against a spurious φιλοσοφία, arbi- 
trary ἐντάλματα, and an erroneous διδασκαλία. It is improbable 
that any definite system was being propagated. The likelihood 
is rather that the local Christians were being affected by a 
syncretistic, eclectic movement of thought, fostered by esoteric 
tendencies in the local Judaism (cp. Hoennicke’s JC. 122f.) 
Paul’s references to the movement naturally are confined to the 
special points at which it threatened to impinge upon the true 
faith of Jesus Christ, and we do nct possess any outside inde- 
pendent evidence upon the subject; but the tenets indicate a 
local phase of some syncretistic theosophy (so recently Jacquier, 
Haupt, and Dibelius), a blend of disparate elements rife within 
the popular religion of Phrygia, together with notions and 
practices current among Jewish circles which were sensitive to 
semi-Alexandrian influences. 


That a Jewish element entered into the theosophy is evident from the 
allusions to circumcision and the sabbath (211 16), but it was a subtler form 
of legalism than had crept into the Galatian churches. The Law was no 
longer opposed to grace; no attempt was made to enforce the ceremonial 
practices of Judaism upon the Gentile Christians, and the errorists do not 
seem to have attacked Paul personally. Their claim was to lead men from a 
mere faith in Christ to an esoteric γνῶσις which admitted the initiated into 
the mysteries of an angelic hierarchy and thereby into a higher and a fuller 
religious experience. These intermediate beings contain the divine fulness, 
and therefore are to be worshipped (cp. Lueken’s Michae/, 4f., 62-91) by 
all who would attain to the power and insight of the perfected life (1%), 
Such personal spirits play a cosmic réle also, as τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (25) ; 
their functions are not only creative but also providential, in a sense, 
resembling those of the saints in Roman Catholicism. Finally, this type of 
theosophy tended to foster asceticism (2%) and exclusiveness (3!'). The 
latter was then, as afterwards, the inevitable accompaniment of movements 
which emphasised speculative attainments, mystical or otherwise ; pretensions 
and prerogatives were the badge of all their tribe. As for asceticism, or the 
abstinential side of practical ethics, it was the natural result of any φιλοσυφία, 
as Philo and Josephus chose to describe their Judaism, which sharply con- _ 
trasted the material and the spiritual, making attainments in the knowledge of 
the divine being depend upon the eschewing, as far as possible, of contact with 
gross matter. The universe was composed of angelic στοιχεῖα. Man was 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 153 


part of then (cp. Philo, de vict. offerentibus, 2), and therefore owed them 
the same sort of reverence as the Mithraic initiate owed to the spirits or angels 
(cp. Dieterich’s Mithras-Liturgie’, pp. 52 f.),—a reverence which partly con- 
sisted in keeping one’s higher self pure from all earthly corruptions. In this 
way, as Dibelius points out, angel-worship* and asceticism form the foci of 
the ellipse. 

The compass has been pretty well boxed in the endeavour 
to ascertain the direction of Paul’s refutation in Colossians. 
The errorists have been identified as Jews with theosophic or 
Alexandrian tendencies (Eichhorn, Junker, Schneckenburger), as 
pagans with Pythagorean (Grotius) or Oriental (Hug) affinities, 
or as Christians tinged with-Essene ideas (Mangold, Klépper, 
Weiss); the φιλοσοφία has been assigned to a definite source 
such as Mithraism (A. Steinmann in Strassburg. Didzesanblatt, 
1906, 105-118) or Cerinthus (Mayerhoff, R. Scott, after 
Nitzsch). The affinities with Essenism, emphasised by 
Thiersch, Ewald, Lightfoot, and Godet amongst others, do not 
amount to very much; the parallel on angel-worship breaks 
down, the practice of asceticism differs, and other traits of the 
Colossian errorists do not correspond exactly to those of the 
Essenes (cp. Hort’s JC. 116f., and Junker’s ed. pp. 24 ἢ). 
Michaelis thought of disciples of John the Baptist; the 
Tiibingen critics, followed by Sabatier, S. Davidson, and 
Pfleiderer, detected the physiognomy of gnostic Ebionites. 

§ 3. Authenticity—The reasons which led the Tubingen 
school to regard Colossians as sub-Pauline (see above, especially 
Weizsacker, AA. ii. 240-245; and Brickner, Chron. pp. 41-56, 
138 f.) were in the main (a) too rigid a view of Paul’s mind, 
based on the Corinthian, Galatian, and Roman epistles; and (4) 
a belief that the epistle presupposed the full-blown gnostic 
systems of the second century. Subsequent researches into 
the presuppositions of gnosticism in Orientalism and in the 
later phases of Jewish speculation have, however, disclosed the 
existence, in more or less developed forms, of widely scattered 
conceptions and practices of a semi-speculative tendency, which 
render it quite possible that such a religious temper as that 
controverted in Colossians could have prevailed during the first 
century. The contact of Orientalism with Judaism on its specu- 
lative and popular sides, in the Diaspora, is independent of and 

* “Im ibrigen ist die Engellehre dasjenige Gebiet des Paulinismus, 


welches von der Logia Jesu am wenigsten beeinflusst ist” (Resch, Des 
Paulinismus, 161). 


154 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


prior to the rise of Christianity, and the germs of what was 
afterwards gnosticism can be detected in various quarters during 
the earlier half of the first century. At any time after A.D. 40, 
early Christianity was upon the edge of such speculative 
tendencies ; and while a discussion such as that of Colossians is 
unprecedented, so far as Paul’s epistles are concerned, it is a 
long way from being historically a prolepsis. 


(a) The traces of Colossians in the earlier half of the second century 
literature are both dim and dubious. In Barn. xii. 7 (ἐν αὐτῷ, sc. Jesus, 
πάντα καὶ els αὐτόν) 118! (τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, , » καὶ τὰ 
πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκε) may be echoed (cp. κατ᾽ εἰκόνα, 35" =vi. 12 f.), and 
the occurrence of ἀγὼν ὑπέρ (2') in Clem. Rom. ii. 4 is noticeable ; but neither 
here nor in Polykarp (i. 2=158, x. 1, firmi in fide et immutabiles=1%, ep. 
1 Co 1558) can stress be laid on the coincidences, though Pol. xi. 2=35, were 
it not for Eph 5°, would be a certain reminiscence. The practice of Ignatius 
in confining σύνδουλος to deacons (2224. ii., Magn. ii., Phil. iv., Smyrn. xii.), 
may, however, as Lightfoot suggests, be a reflection of Col 17 47 (where alone 
Paul employs the term, and both times with διάκονος) and the other parallels 
(24=Smyrn. i. 2, καθηλωμένους ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ, 1%=Trall. v. 2, ὁρατὰ καὶ 
ἀόρατα) serve to corroborate upon the whole the likelihood that the epistle 
was known to Ignatius. In Hermas, the description of Christ as ἡ ζωή 
(Vis. τι. ii. 8), if it be accurate, might reflect Jn 145 as much as Col 33, the 
more so as the reference to ‘denying the law’ in the context points to 
passages like Mt 10 ; and Szm. 1x. xii., with its definition of God’s Son as 
πάσης τῆς κτίσεως αὐτοῦ προγενέστερος (2) and its allusion to Christ’s salvation 
of angels (15), indicates the spread of the ideas of Colossians rather than a 
definite acquaintance with its text. The inclusion of the epistle in Marcion’s 
Canon proves, however, that it was well known at Rome as elsewhere 
during this period, and the inference to be drawn from the scanty use of it as 
compared with the richer traces of Ephesians is that the latter writing, by its 
superior size and value, must have tended to attract more notice from 
those who were in sympathy with the ideas voiced by both, Like the 
other Pauline letters, it is definitely cited by Irenzeus (adv. haer. iii. 14. 1= 
412), Tertulliande.g. de praescr. haer. vii. =2°), and Clem. Alex. (Strom. i. 
I, etc. =1%), besides being included in the Muratorian Canon and employed 
by Origen (¢. Ce/s. v. 8=2'8!%), The allusions in Justin to Christ as the 
πρωτύτοκος πάσης κτίσεως (Dial. Ixxxv., cp. Ixxxiv., and Cohort. ad 
Graecos, xv.), and to the περιτομή (Deal. xli., xliii.), probably flow from 
Col 1'%- and 2", while gnostic sects like the Peratici used it, as well as 
Basilides and Ptolemzeus (according to Hippolytus). 

(4) The vocabulary presents no features which necessarily involve a sub- 
Pauline author. When account is taken of the fact that Paul is writing 
upon a new subject to a strange church, in which no objection had been 
taken to his apostolic authority or gospel, the proportion of hapax heuromena 
is not unnatural. Several characteristic Pauline terms are lacking, e.g. 
ἀποκάλυψις, δύνασθαι, εἰ μή, εἴ τις, εἰ καί, εἴπερ, κοινωνία, λοιπός, μᾶλλον, 
οὐκέτι, πείθειν ; but, onthe other hand, δικαιοσύνη is also absent from 1 Thess., 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 155 


a large number (including δικαίωσις, δόκιμος, κοινός, σωτηρία, ὑπακοή) are also 
absent from Gal., δικαιοῦν never occurs even in I Thess., 2 Cor., and Phil., 
νόμος is absent from 2 Cor., σωτηρία from 1 Cor., and σταυρός from Romans. 
Genitival constructions and composite forms are unusually frequent, but they 
do not constitute any primary argument against the Pauline authorship. 

The style is perhaps slower and Joftier than that of the earlier epistles ; 
clauses are linked to one another by participles and relatives, often in a loose 
connection (¢.g. 1°), which contrasts with Paul’s ordinary use of particles like 
ἄρα, διό, and διότι. There are anacoloutha, but the dialectic is less rapid and 
pointed, especially in the opening sections of the epistle. ‘‘ Die Aiisdriicke 
sind weicher, voller, feierlicher, die Gedanken sind breiter ausgesponnen, vel. 
25-, Man koénnte den Stil einen liturgischen nennen, wie wir ihn etwa auf 
Ehrendekreten fiir Augustus finden” (Nageli, Wortschatz des Paulus, 84). 
This, however, may be due to the absence of any personal opponent. The 
circumstances were not such as to provoke the agitation and the sharp argu- 
mentative method which characterise, ¢.g., Galatians and Corinthians. 

(c) The speculative advance constitutes a more serious difficulty. Christ 
is (115t-) the principle of creation, but this is implied in τ Co 8° and due to 
the elaboration of his pre-existence as a heavenly Man. His cosmical 
significance (117 τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν) is a corollary of this, and the 
doctrine of his person as the object of creation (11° τὰ πάντα els αὐτὸν ἔκτισται) 
is no more opposed to 1 Co 15%, Ro 116 than is 1 Co 8®to Ro 1185, 
The triumph of the redeemer over hostile spirits (285, cp. 1) is also pre- 
supposed in 1 Co 2% and Phil 2% ; the former passage, in fact, indicates that 
there were elements in Paul’s theosophy which were more central than the 
exigencies of the extant letters suggest. Often, as at Thessalonika and 
Corinth, they had to be ignored in his ordinary preaching; but all along 
Paul had his cosmic speculations, and Colossians is an example of how he 
developed them when an occasion offered for expressing them in certain applica- 
tions. In meeting the Colossian heresy, he naturally drew largely upon the 
vocabulary and ideas of the σοφία which he was in the habit of imparting to 
the reAelo.. Furthermore, he probably used several technical terms em- 
ployed by the errorists themselves. These considerations may help to show 
how the advanced christology of this epistle, especially when it is taken along 
with Pnilippians, does not—even in its cosmic extension of the redemptive 
death and in its organic relation of Christ to the church—represent a position 
which would have been necessarily impossible for Paul to occupy. 

Recent proofs of the Pauline character of this christology may be found 
in Denney’s Jesus and the Gospel (1909), pp. 34f., and in M. Dibelius, de 
Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (1909), pp. 125-151. The latter critic, 
after an exhaustive discussion of Pfleiderer’s arguments, concludes that 
“neither the language nor the contents of Col 1-2 render the Pauline author- 
ship impossible.” 


§ 4. /ntegrity—Meditating hypotheses have more than once 
been suggested in order to explain here, as in the case of the 
pastorals, the apparent mixture of Pauline and sub-Pauline 
elements. Thus Ewald (Sexdschretben, pp. 466 f.) attributed the 
form of the epistle to Timotheus (11), as Spitta did afterwards 


156 LITZRATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with 2 Thessalonians, whilst Hitzig (Zur Kritik paulin. Briefe, 
1870, pp. 22f.) regarded the epistle as a genuine Pauline note 
worked up for later and dogmatic purposes, and R. Scott (Zhe 
Pauline Epistles, 300f.) attributes its composition entirely to 
Timotheus. When the stylistic data are fairly weighed, however, 
the necessity for such hypotheses largely disappears. More 
might be said, perhaps, for the supposition that the epistle 
contains some interpolations in its canonical text (cp. Weisse, 
Beitrage zur Kritik paul. Briefe, pp. 22f.,59f.). The possibility 
of such changes being made during the second century is to be 
admitted, especially as scribes had always the temptation of con- 
forming Colossians to Ephesians. When the latter is taken as 
sub-Pauline, any glosses in Col. may be referred (1.) either to the 
author of Eph., or (ii.) to subsequent editors. For the former 
hypothesis (Holtzmann, cp. TZZ., 1877, 1ogf., 1892, 37f.; 
Hausrath, iv. 122 f., and Soltau) see further below. The 
latter is more convincing because less rigorous, although the 
working out of the hypothesis carries us often behind any textual 
evidence. 


Editorial handling has been suspected, ¢.g., in (a) 1°” (the christo- 
logical section) in whole or part (om.  Marcion, 166-17 yon Soden, 1s>+” 
Weisse, 16:9 Holtzmann and Clemen) * owing to its faulty connection and the 
difficulty of harmonising the reconciling of τὰ... οὐρανοῖς with the view of 
2124. or even with the Pauline doctrine elsewhere (cp. Baljon, Theol. Studién, 
1885, 316-329); in (4) 14 (οὗ ἠκούσατε... . οὐρανόν, J. Weiss); in (c) 2} (καὶ ὅσοι 

. . σαρκί), which might be a catholicising gloss (so Weisse, J. Weiss). The 
corrupt state of the text in 2! has also led to attempts at emendation ft 
and hypotheses of interpolation (1617 θέλων... ἐμβατεύων, 18. 2. Weisse ; 
17. ab. 19. πάντα and κατὰ κτλ. 223, dreva.. . τινί 4, Iitzig ; 1718». 19, mp 

τινα. .. τιί 4, Holtzmann). ‘‘ This epistle, and more especially 

its second chapter, appears to have been ill-preserved in ancient times” 
(WH. ii. 127), but such interpolations or glosses as may reasonably be 
conjectured do not point to any far-reaching process of editing, least of all 
upon the part of the author (or under the influence) of Ephesians. 

In 115. under the speculative christology there vibrates a doctrine similar 
to that of the Alexandrian Judaism which reappears in Philo,t according to 
——_—_ τ ..,ς.ς.͵͵.-ςς͵ς-ςς͵ς 

* Kinheitlichheit, pp. 127 1. ; Paulus, i. pp. 127 {. 

+ Θόλων (2'*) seems to be either a gloss (Bakhuysen, Baljon) or a 
corruption of some primitive reading like ἐλθών (Junius, Toup, Linwood), 
θέλγων (Clericus). In v.48 ἣν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν is probably a marginal gloss 
on καθ᾽ ἡμῶν. 

t‘* Christ was not a lay figure that Paul could drape as he chose in the 
finery of Palestinian apocalyptic or of Alexandrian philosophy. He is not 
exhibiting Christ as divine or quasi-divine, by investing him in the wave ing 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 157 


which the Logos as God’s shadow (σκία) was employed as the organ of God 
at creation (/¢g. alleg. iii. 31), the Logos also being prior to all creation (/eg. 
alleg. iii. 61). But there is not the slightest reason for conjecturing (as 
Norden does, Antike Kunstprosa, ii. 475) a lost source, treating of the Logos 
from the OT standpoint, behind Philo, the author of Colossians, and 
Theophilus of Antioch, simply because the same term, πρωτοτόκος πάσης 
κτίσεως, is applied in Col 1! to the Son of God as is used by Philo and 
Theophilus (ad Auto/, ii. 21) for the Logos,—Theophilus never elsewhere 
using the Pauline epistles. 


Holtzmann’s ingenious and complicated theory postulates 
an original Pauline epistle, directed against the legal and ascetic 
tendencies of the Colossians ; this was worked up by the aufor 
ad Ephesios, first of all, into the canonical Ephesians, as a protest 
against a Jewish-Christian theosophy, and afterwards remodelled 
separately into the canonical Colossians. Such _ filagree- 
criticism has failed to win acceptance ; the literary criteria are 
too subjective, and the evidence for bisecting the error attacked 
in Colossians is not convincing. Soltau postulates an original 
Colossian epistle, its framework visible in Co] 115 7-8 10-18 and 
410-18, with its main contents in a threefold division : (a) a section 
independent of Eph., viz. 21-34 (with interpolations in 2% 7 9. 11b. 
18, 15.19. 224), (2) a christological section 1°19, and (c) the table 
of household duties, 3°-4*7%. This was worked over by a 
later editor using the epistle to the Laodiceans, whose original 
form may be reconstructed perhaps from Col 12-29 35-44. 7-10 
(with an address modelled on Col 1%, Eph 11:33. Then 
came the composition of Eph., based in part also on the epistle 
to Laodicea, after which Col. suffered further accretions, largely 
due to an interpolator who used Eph. But this hypothesis is not 
preferable to Holtzmann’s. It assumes that the original 
Colossians was not circulated at all widely; that it suffered a 
twofold process of homiletical and dogmatic expansion to a degree 
unparalleled in the history of early Christian literature; and, 
finally, that the ministry which Archippus is to fulfil (417) is to 
look after the interests of Onesimus! On general grounds this 
explanation of the relationship between Col. and Eph. has 
nothing more in its favour than most of its rivals ; and, above all, 
the criteria employed to detect later glosses in the original text, 


and uncertain glories of the Alexandrian Logos; he is casting upon all 
creation and redemption the steadfast and unwavering light of that divine 
presence of which he was assured in Christ, and for which the Alexandrians 
had groped in vain” (Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 36-37). 


158 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and to separate the two forms of the epistle, are often arbitrary. 
That glosses may have crept in from the margin into this, as 
into other epistles of Paul, is perfectly possible ; but the reasons 
adduced in the present instance for such interpolations are not 
convincing. Soltau seems to assume that wherever parallel 
passages occur, one or other must be secondary ; which rests on 
an entirely ὦ priori conception of style, especially in an epistle, 
and on an erroneous estimate of Paul’s style in particular. 
Thus no adequate grounds can be alleged why one writer should 
not refer three times to Christ as ἡ κεφαλή, or why the repet- 
tion of almost synonymous terms, like (27) ἐρριζωμένοι and 
τεθεμελιωμένοι, Should be held un-Pauline. Furthermore, the 
supposed aim of the original Colossian epistle, viz., to oppose 
the φιλοσοφία of Philo, involves too restricted a meaning of 
φιλοσοφία. 

Michelsen’s theory is even more elaborate. Pfleiderer, who also 
postulates a Pauline original, more prudently declines to reconstruct it out 
of the canonical epistle, which he regards as a subsequent adaptation or 


resetting of the genuine letter; but this is little improvement on the Holtz- 
mann-Soltau view. 


δ 5. Place and Period.—To the period of imprisonment 
under Felix at Czesarea, some, if not all, of the captivity-epistles 
have been assigned: Col., Eph., and Philemon by D. Schultz 
(SX, 1829, pp. 616-617), after Beza and Thiersch, with Schott 
(δ 66), Bottger (Bertrage, ii. 47 f.), Wiggers (SX., 1841, pp. 436- 
450), Meyer, Laurent, Schenkel, Hausrath (iv. 118-119, Col. and 
Philemon), Sabatier (pp. 225-249), Reuss, Weiss, and Haupt; 
and even Philippians by O. Holtzmann (7ZZ., 1890, p. 177; 
NT Leitgeschichte, pp. 133-134), Spitta (Apgeschichte, 281; Ure. 
i. 34), and Macpherson (Zphesians, pp. 86-94). Philemon * 
and Philippians (see below) must certainly be dated in the 
Roman imprisonment, however, and there is not evidence 


* “*Paul’s expectations of release were more natural at Rome than at 
Cesarea. During the latter part of his imprisonment at Czesarea he knew 
that he was going to Rome. It would be necessary then to place the letter 
in the earlier part. But it does not well suit this, for Paul had been fora 
long time anxious to see Rome, and it is most unlikely that he should think 
of going to Coloss first” (Peake, EG7, iii. -491-492). The arguments 
against the Czesarean period are succinctly put by Bleek (Zv#/. §§ 161, 
165) and Hort (Romans and Ephesians, 101-110). For the other side, 
see E. L. Hicks (7he Jnterpreter, April 1910: ‘*Did St. Paul write from 
Ceesarea ?”’), 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 159 


enough to prove the contrary for Colossians. Had it beer 
written from Czsarea (so von Dobschiitz, Ure 102), some 
greeting from Philip (Ac 21°14) would have been included, or, 
at any rate, some mention of him among the apostle’s friends and 
companions (411). The two years in Czesarea are certainly a 
blank, and as certainly Paul must have been active during this 
interval, but we are not entitled, without adequate evidence, to fill 
up this blank by placing Colossians or any other epistle within 
its limits. There is no reason to break away from the ordinary 
view that Colossians was composed during Paul’s imprisonment 
at Rome. As Philippians was certainly the last letter he wrote, 
Colossians falls earlier; it is earlier than Ephesians, even when 
the letter is ascribed to Paul (so especially Honig, ZWT7., 1872, 
63 f., followed by Weiss, 4/7. i. 377f.; Sabatier, ASR. iv. 
439 f.; and Godet, ZVVZ. 475-490), though Coleridge (Zadle- 
Zalk, May 25, 1830) thought otherwise. ‘The Epistle to the 
=phesians 15 evidently a catholic epistle addressed to the 
whole of what might be called St. Paul’s diocese. It is one 
of the divinest compositions of man. ... The epistle to the 
Colossians is the overflowing, as it were, of St. Paul’s mind upon 
the same subject.” This priority of Ephesians is upheld by 
Eichhorn, Bohmer, Hug, Credner, Anger, Schneckenburger, 
Matthies, Reuss, Guericke, T. K. Abbott, and P. Ewald amongst 
others, who advocate its Pauline authorship, mainly on the ground 
that it is the epistle referred to in Col 416 (and therefore written 
previously). Mayerhoff, among critics of the opposite school, 
is almost alone in putt) 1g it prior to Colossians. 

§ 6. Zhe Laodicean epistle—The enigmatic reference to an 
epistle ἐκ Λαοδικίας (416) has given rise to a swarm of hypotheses,* 
identifying the writing in question either with one or another of 
the extant Pauline letters, e.g. Ephesians (so, further, Grotius, 
Huth, Mill, Wetstein, Paley, Hofmann, Mangold, Holzhausen),t or 
r Tim. (John of Damascus, Theophylact), or Philemon (Wieseler, 
Comment. de epistola Laodicena quam vulgo perditam putant, 
1844), or else with Hebrews (Schu'thess, Schneckenburger, 


* Special monographs by K. Rudrauff (ve epistola Laodicenstum, Giessen, 
1680), C. J. Huth (2 2252. ad Laod, in encyclic. ad Eph. adservata, Erlangen, 
1751), R. Anger (Ueber den Laod.-Lrief, Leipzig, 1843)*, A. Sartori (Leber 
den L.- Brief, 1853); see, further, Zahn (GA’ i. 277 ἴ., ii. 83 f., 5661., 583f.). 

+ Especially by Laurent ( /ahrb. fiir deutsche Theol., 1866, 129f.) and 
Klostermann (74sa., 1870, 100 f.). 


160 LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


etc.).* The Ephesian hypothesis has won some favour in the 
form of a conjecture that ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ was in one of the copies 
of the circular letter now known as Ephesians (so, e.g., Usher, 
Matthies, Conybeare and Howson, Credner, Michaelis, Eichhorn, 
Schrader, Olshausen, Wiggers, Neander, Anger, Harless, Bleek, 
Lightfoot, Salmon, Abbott); under the title προς Λαοδικεας, it is 
argued, Marcion placed Ephesians in his Canon (see below, under 
Ephesians). The hypothesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Calvin, 
Beza, Erasmus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Estius, and others, that the 
epistle was one from the Laodicean church to Paul (or Epaphras, 
or Colossé), not from Paul to them, is needless grammatically, as 
ἐκ has the pregnant force of from and out of, and intrinsically 
improbable, as Paul was much more likely to give directions 
apout a letter which he had written to the neighbouring church 
of Laodicea than about one which that church had written or 
was to write to him. The context plainly implies (καὶ ὑμεῖς) 
that the Colossians and the Laodiceans stood in the same 
relation to the two letters in question. 

No trace of this epistle is to be found, and it must be 
egarded as having perished at an early date after its composition. 
It was in order to avoid this conclusion that an epistle of Paul 
could have been lost, attempts were made to identify it with 
τ: Tim., at the close of which the words ἐγραφη απο λαοδικειας (7.6. 
L. = place of composition) are added in several MSS (Zahn, GX. 
ii. 567 f.), just as occasionally at the close of one or other of the 
Thessalonian epistles. But Paul had never been at Laodicea. 
Probably it was the same motive which prompted the cognate 
explanation of ἐκ A. as “sent from Laodicea to Paul” (see 
above). But the letter could have been neither written by Paul 
at Laodicea (a place he had never evangelised) nor composed 
by the Laodiceans themselves. 

It is plain from Col 2! that Paul’s letter to the church of 
Laodicea was, like Colossians, addressed to Christians who 
were strangers to him. The apostle orders the two churches, 
being on the same footing towards himself, to exchange copies of 
their respective epistles. The latter point bears incidentally on 
the circulation of apostolic epistles. The first injunction (cp. 
1 Th 5527) was to get an epistle read to all the members of the 
church addressed, instead of to any coterie or circle; the next 


* Philastrius (//aer. Ixxxix.) mentions this opinion as held by some whe 
attributed its composition to Luke. 


THE LAODICEAN EPISTLE 161 


was to promote in certain cases the circulation of a given epistle 
among neighbouring churches. The Colossian Christians were 
not only to salute the Christians at Laodicea (Col 415), but to 
communicate Colossians to them and secure “ Laodiceans” from 
them, or rather to read it when they received it in due course. 
The most natural meaning of τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικίας (=the letter you 
are to receive from Laodicea) implies that Paul had either given 
oral instructions (to Tychicus ?) to have a copy of Laodiceans 
sent to the neighbouring church of Colossé, or inserted in that 
letter an injunction corresponding to Col 4516. He gives no 
reason for this procedure, and it does not follow that Laodiceans, 
any more than Colossians, was a circular pastoral intended for 
several churches. ‘The probability is that, like Colossians, it had 
individual traits, whereas the canonical Ephesians contains none 
of these. 


The pseudo-Pauline Zf7stola ad Laodicenses is a much later forgery, dating 
from the second (Zahn) or more probably the fourth century ; cp. Harnack, 
ACL. i. pp. 36-37, and Lightfoot’s Colossians (pp. 272f.).1 Four fresh 
Spanish MSS are noticed in /&Z. (xxiii. pp. 73f.), and a transcription of 
one in Madrid is given by Prof. E. J. Goodspeed in 477. (1904) pp. 536- 
538. The epistle was not only read in some circles of the early church 
(‘‘legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur,” Jerome, 
de utr. inlustr. 5), but widely circulated in the medizval period. For over nine 
centuries ‘‘this forged epistle hovered about the door of the sacred Canon, 
without either finding admission or being peremptorily excluded. At length 
the revival of learning dealt its death-blow to this as to so many other 
spurious pretensions” (Lightfoot, p. 297). 


(F) PHILEMON. 


LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—Besides most edd.* of Colossians, see the 
special edd. by R. Rollock (Geneva, 1602); W. Jones (London, 1635); L. 
C. G. Schmidt (1766); α. C. Storr (1781); Hagenbach (Basel, 1829) ; J. 
K. I. Demme, Zrkiarung d. Phil. Briefes (1844); H. A. Petermann, ad 
jidem versionum ... cum earum textu orig. grace (Berlin, 1844); Rothe, 
Pauls ad Phil. epistolae interpretatio historico-exegetica (Bremen, 1844)"; Koch 
(Ziirich, 1846); Wiesinger (in Olshausen’s Comm. 1850); F. R. Kiihne 
(1856); Bleek (Berlin, 1865); van Oosterzee (Eng. tr., New York, 1868) ; 


1The Latin text of the epistle is printed by Lightfoot (with a Gk. 
rendering), Westcott (Canon of the NT, appendix E), and Wohlenberg in 
his edition of the Pastoral epistles (pp. 339 f.). 

3 Especially those by Meyer, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Oltramare, and Haupt. 
It is edited by some others (¢.g. Wiesinger and M. R. Vincent) along with 
Philippians, by a few (e.g. G. T. Zacharié and M. F. Sadler) along with the 
Pastoral epistles, 

tr 


162 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


M. R. Vincent (7CC. 1897, ‘ Philippians and Philemon’); Lueken (SV7.! 
1906); A. H. Drysdale (1906); A. Schumann (1908); Oesterley (EG7. 
1910). 

(4) Studies—J. G. C. Klotzsch, de occastone et indole epistolae ad Philem. 
(1792); Ὁ. H. Wildschut, de σὲ dictionts et sermonzs elegantia in epistola ad 
Philem. (1809) ; Schenkel (BZ. iv. 531-532); Holtzmann (ZW7., 1873, pp. 
428f., ‘der Brief an Philemon kritisch untersucht’); J. P. Esser, de Brief 
aan Philemon (1875)*; 5. Davidson, 77. i. 153-160; Steck (/P7., 1891, 
570-584); Z. Weber’s Der Brief an α΄. Philemon, Ein Vorbild fiir die christl. 
Behandlung socialer Fragen (1896); C. Roth (ZSchw., 1897, I-13); von 
Dobschiitz, Ure. 115f.; J. H. Bernard (D&. iv. 832-834); van Manen 
(OCL. 59f.; EB. 3693-3697). 


The occasion of this note is as follows: Onesimus, a slave, 
had run away from his master, a prosperous and influential 
citizen of Colossé (cp. Col 4°), either owing to some harshness 
on the latter’s part (Col 41), or because he took advantage of his 
master’s Christian forbearance (Col 322), Paul never hints at 
the former reason in his note. On the other hand, vv.1!- 18-19 
suggest that Onesimus had robbed as well as deserted 
Philemon, and for either offence he was liable to be crucified. 
We have no information as to how or why he came across Paul, 
voluntarily (Bengel, Haupt, cp. Lightfoot, 310-311) or acci- 
dentally. This little note simply shows the erstwhile δραπέτης 
in the apostle’s company as a Christian, and on the point of 
being sent back to his master, for whose forbearance the apostle 
pleads in a few charming, tactful lines. After greeting Philemon, 
Apphia his wife, and Archippus (possibly his son), with the 
Christians who met for worship at Philemon’s house (v.?), Paul 
begins with a captatio benevolentie of praise for Philemon’s kindly 
Christian character (*7), which encourages him to make a 
winning appeal on behalf of the unworthy Onesimus (8:31), now 
returning (Col 4°) along with Tychicus to Colossé, as a penitent 
and sincere Christian, in order to resume his place in the 
household of Philemon and Apphia. With a line or two of 
personal detail (32:35) the note then closes. Possibly (cp. ν.}9 
ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί) it was an autograph; if it was 
dictated, v.!® was probably written by Paul himself on the 
margin of the note when finished, and the parenthesis of v.5 may 
have a similar origin. 

As Paul evidently had some hope of a speedy release from 
his imprisonment (1 22-8), and as Aristarchus and Luke (*, cp 
Col 4! 14) were with him, Czsarea might conceivably be the 


PHILEMON 163 


place from which this note was sent (so, ey., Hilgenfeld and 
Hausrath); but Paul’s eyes were towards Rome during his 
captivity under Felix, and at Czsarea the conditions were less 
favourable than at Rome (Ac 28°! ἀπεδέχετο πάντας τοὺς εἰσ- 
πορευομένους πρὸς αὐτόν) for an outsider like Onesimus getting 
access to the apostle. Rome, too, was the natural refuge of 
runaway slaves (/fugztivarit), who could the more easily escape 
detection by plunging into its seething population. Both 
Aristarchus and Luke were also with Paul at Rome (Ac 2810). 
In all likelihood, therefore, the note was written during Paul’s 
confinement in the capital (cp. Phil 2%). This is corroborated 
by the similarity of style and contents between it on the one 
hand and Colossians and Philippians on the other, both written 
at this period: cp. e.g. συνέργος and συστρατιώτης (1%, Phil 235), 
ἐπιγνώσει (8, Phil 19, Col 19:10), ἀνῆκον (8, Col 318), συναιχμάλωτος 
(8, Col 410), ἀπέχω (15, Phil 418), and ἀδελφὸς ἀγαπητός (16, Col 47), 
besides the fact that all three are written by Paul as a prisoner 
and as associated with Timotheus, whilst Col. and Philem. in 
addition contain greetings to Archippus and associate Luke, 
Mark, Aristarchus, and Demas in the closing salutations.* 


(a) The inclusion of καὶ Tiuddeos ὁ ἀδελφός in v. seems at first sight a 
semi-official tinge, but Timotheus may have been a friend of Philemon and 
his family ; there is no obvious reason for suspecting that the words are an 
editorial addition during the period of the letter’s reception into the Canon, 
although the v.]. ἔσχομεν (or ἔχομεν) in v.7 represents an early effort to 
bring out the fact of Timotheus as Paul’s associate. It is extremely unlikely 
that Paul added his name in order to adduce a second witness (cp. 2 Co 13!) 
to the slave’s reformed character (Zahn, Belser). 

(ὁ) Philemon’s residence has been variously assigned to ἜΗΝ (so, ¢.g., 
Wieseler +), Ephesus (Holtzmann), and Colossé (Hilgenfeld, Bleek, etc.). 
Even if Archippus belonged to Laodicea (so Lightfoot on Col 418-17), it 
would not follow that Philemon’s residence must also have been there; the 
two towns lay not far from one another. Paul cannot (Col 2!) have con- 
verted Philemon at Colossé ; they may have met at Ephesus, but even if the 
Ephesian Onesimus of Ignatius (ad Ep, ii.) were supposed to be the 
Onesimus of this note, it would not prove that Philemon stayed there. The 
probabilities, such as they are, point on the whole to Colossé. No credence, 
however, can be given to the statement of Afost. Constit. vii. 46, which turns 
all three into bishops, Archippus of Laodicea, Philemon of Colossé, and 
Onesimus of Berea. 


* To complete the parallelism of names in Col 4!!4=Philemon 2% 
Amling (ZN /V., 1909, 261-262) proposes to read ᾿Ιησοῦς (=’Ioderos) for 
᾿Ιησοῦ in the latter passage, or Ἰησοῦ, ᾿Ιησοῦς. 

t On the ground that this note is that referred to in Col 4" (Chron. 450 1.). 


164 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


(c) The note is not strictly private. It is addressed not only to Philemon 
(primarily), but to Apphia his wife (ἀδελφή, as often in this sense). Unless 
2 Jn is addressed to an individual, this note is the only extant letter in the 
NT literature which is even partially addressed to a woman, although Phoebe 
(see above, pp. 1371.) had one written on her behalf. For letters of ancient 
philosophers to women (6.9. Epicurus and Seneca to their mothers. 
Ptolemzus to Flora, and Porphyry to Marcella), see J. Geffcken in Preuss. 
Jahrbiicher (1905), 427-447. 

The seven Pauline ἅπαξ εὑρόμενα in this note (ἀναπέμπειν, ἀποτίνειν, 
ἄχρηστος, ἐπιτάσσειν, Eevla, ὀνίνασθαι, and προσσφείλειν) are all current in 
the κοινή (as the papyri prove), and most occur elsewhere in the LXX or 
in the NT itself. ‘* Wenn uns eine Schrift des NT von der zwanglosen 
hellenistischen Unterhaltungsprache eine Vorstellung zu geben mag, so ist es 
der anmutige Philemonbrief” (Nageli, der Wortschatz des Apostel Paulus, 
82). The play on the name of Onesimus (” ἐγώ σον ὀναίμην ἐν κυρίῳ) 
happens to recur in Ignat. ad 2165. ii. ; but it is too common and obvious 
(even when supported in Ignat. zd¢¢., by ἀναπαύω in sense of Philemon 7: 39) 
to indicate that Ignatius had this note in mind. Philemon, however, which 
is twice quoted as Pauline by Origen (its first commentator), was included in 
Marcion’s Canon (cp. Tert. adv. Mare. v. 21=soli hinc epistole breuitas sua 
profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis euaderet) as well as in the Muratorian ; 
but its private character, its brevity, and its lack of dogmatic teaching threw 
it into positive disfavour with many Christians, especially throughout the 
Syrian church, where the first tardy recognition of it occurs in the Catalogus 
Sinaiticus. Jerome, in his preface (A.D. 388), had to defend it against 
widespread depreciation (‘a plerisque ueteribus repudiatam’). A good 
account of this is given in Zahn’s GX. i. 268f., ii. 997f., and in Leipoldt’s 
GK. i. 208-213. In modern times the note has had to run the gauntlet of a 
doctrinaire criticism which regarded it as a pseadonymous little pamphlet, com- 
posed as a pendant to the un-Pauline Colossians and modelled on Pliny’s 
well-known letter to Sabinianus (so το Baur to Steck and van Manen).* 
More moderately, but unconvincingly (cp. Schenkel’s BZ. iv. 531-532, and 
Clemen’s Paulus, i. 128f.), interpolations have been suspected (e.g. by 
Holtzmann, Hausrath, iv. 122-123, and Briickner, Chron. 200f.) in vv. 
(καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφός μου, with judv), ὅδ᾽ (the chiasmus), and 4% A 
Frenchman is usually worth attention upon questions of literary style, and 
two French critics have summed up on the letter to Philemon with admir- 
able insight. ‘*Peu de pages,” says Renan, (iv. 96) ‘‘ont un accent de 
sincérité aussi prononcé. Paul seul a pu écrire ce petit chef-d’ceuvre.” ‘Ce 
ne sont que quelque lignes familiéres,” Sabatier (?apétre Paul, 234, Eng. tr. p. 
226) adds, ‘‘ mais si pleines de grace, de sel, d’affection sérieuse et confiante 
que cette courte épitre brille comme une perle de la plus exquise finesse, 


* As Hausrath observes (iv. 122 f.), ‘the thought that Christianity unites 
in a higher sphere things severed in this world, and teaches them mutual love, 
cannot be maintained against the plain realism of the document. This isa 
reunion in which Onesimus obviously fears a too speedy acquaintance with 
the lash, and the object of the epistle is simply to save him from this fate.” 
‘*Simply ” is not quite accurate, but otherwise Hausrath’s judgment is correct 


PHILIPPIANS 165 


dans le riche trésor du Nouveau Testament. Jamais n’a mieux été réalisé 
le précepte que Paul lui-méme donnait ἃ la fin de sa lettre aux Colossiens 
(4°).” 


(G) PHILIPPIANS. 


LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—besides the older commentaries of Calvin 
(1539), Estius (1614), and Henry Airay (1618), Michaelis, Paraphrasis*, etc. 
(1769); G. C. Storr (1783); Rheinwald (1827, 1834); Flatt’s Vorlesumgen 
(1829); M. Eastburn (New York, 1833); T. Passavant (1834); H. S. Baynes 
(London, 1834); Matthies (1835); van Hengel (Comment. perpet., Leyden, 
1838) ; Holemann (Leipzig, 1839); A. Rilliet (Geneva, 1841)*; de Wette? 
(1847) ; Baumgarten-Crusius (1848); Wiesinger in Olshausen’s Commentar 
(1850, Eng. tr. 1851) ; Neander (Eng. tr. 1851, Edinburgh) ; Beelen (Louvain, 
1852); G. F. Jatho (1857); Weiss, der Philipperbrief ausgelegt u. die 
Geschichte seiner Auslegung kritisch dargestellt (1859)* ; Meyer® (1865); 
Bisping? (1866); Schenkel (1867); Hofmann (1871); Braune? (Lange’s 
Bibel-werk, 1875); Reuss (1878); H. Maurer (1880); Reinecke (1881); 
Eadie? (1884); Ὁ. J. Vaughan (1885); Franke (— Meyer’, 1886); Ellicott 5 
)1888) * ; J. Gwynn (Speaker's Comm. 1889); M. F. Sadler (1889); J. Agar 
Beet (1890); Lightfoot® (1891, etc.)*; Padovani (1892); Lipsius? (4C, 
1892)*; A. Klopper (1893)*; Wohlenberg (Aurzgefasst. Comm. 1895); 
Weiss (1896); Moule (CG7. 1897); M. R. Vincent (/CC. 1897); K. J. 
Miller (Freiburg, 1899); J. Drummond (/ztern. Hdbks. to NT, 1899); 
Haupt (— Meyer®, 1902) *; 6. C. Martin (CB. n. d.); H. A. A. Kennedy * 
(EGT7. 1903); Baljon (1904); von Soden? (1906); von Huene (1907); 
W. Lueken (SWV7.? 1907); P. Ewald (ZX. 1908). 

(ὁ) Studies—(i.) against Pauline authorship—Baur’s Paz/us (Eng. tr.), ii. 
ΡΡ. 45f., and in 7heol. Jahré., 1849, 5orf., 1852, 133f.; Hinsch (2WT7., 
1873, ΡΡ. 591.) ; Hoekstra (777., 1875, pp. 416f.); Holsten * (7P7., 1875, 
pp- 425f., 1876, pp. 58f., 282f.); Schwegler (ΝΖ. ii. 133 f.); Straatman, 
de Gemeente te Rome (1878), pp. 201f., after Hitzig (Zur Kriték d. paulin. 
Briefe, 1870) and B. Bauer (Chrzstus u. die Caesaren, 373f.) ; van Manen 
OCL.; 49-51, 82-84. Ε δὲ. 3703-3713. 

(ii.) For Pauline authorship—Liinemann (Pauli ad Philipp. ep. contra 
Baurium defensa, 1847); Ernesti (SX., 1848, 858-924, 1851, pp. 591-632); 
B. Briickner (22. ad Philipp. Paulo auctort vindicata contra Baurium, 
1848); Resch, de Pauthent. de Pépitre aux. Ph. (1850); Grimm (Z/IV7, 
1873, pp. 33f.); Sabatier (ZSR. x. 569-573); Weizsaicker (4.4. i. 218f., 
279f.); P. W. Schmidt, V7Viche Hyperkritik (1870, 54 f., against Holsten) ; 
Hilgenfeld (ZW7., 1884, pp. 498 f.); Mangold (der Aémerbrief, pp. 256f.) ; 
Pfleiderer (Uvc., Eng. tr. i. 248-257); ὟΝ. Briickner (Chron. 218-222); 
Clemen, Paulus, i. 130-138. 

(iii.) General—A. τ Busching’s Jntroductio in epistolam ad Philipp. 
(Halle, 17-46); Hoog, de coetus christ. Phil. conditione primaeva (1825) 3 
Schinz, dze christl. Gemeinde Ph. (1833); C. Miiller, Cosmsentatio de ἐρεῖς 
qguibusdam Ep. ad Philipp. (1844); Hasselmann, Analyse pragmatiqgue de 
Pép. aux Phil. (1862); Schenkel, BZ. iv. 534-538; Hatch (228.°); R. ΚΕ. 
Smith, Zhe Epistle of St. Pauls First Trial (1899); J. Gibb, DB. iii. 
840-844; F. Koltzsch (Der Phil. Brief wie er sum ersten Male verlesen und 


[66 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


gchért ward, 1906); Liitgert, ‘Die Vollkommenen im Philipperbrief u. die 
Enthusiasten in Thessalon.’ (BF7, xiii. 6, 1906). 

(iv.) On 2°"—Tholuck’s Disputatio Christologica de loco Pauli Phil. 24 
(1847); H. J. Holtzmann (Z/V7., 1881, 101-107); Weiffenbach, Zur 
Auslegung d. Stelle Phil. 25 (Karlsruhe, 1854)*; A. B. Bruce, Humzlia- 
tion of Christ 8 (1889), 15 f., 357 f.; E. H. Gifford, 7he Jncarnation (reprint 
from Zxp. 1896); J. Κῦρε! (8 57. xii. 2). 


§ 1. Contents.—Paul’s last epistle is written to the first church 
which he founded in Europe. After a brief address (11:2), Paul 
assures the Philippians of his thankfulness for their κοινωνία in 
the gospel ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡμέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν (13:8), and of his 
prayers for the maturing (1°!) of their ἀγάπη. He then relieves 
their anxiety about himself; the recent turn in his affairs had 
really helped, instead of hindering (as they had feared), the 
prospects of the gospel (11718); furthermore, he had even the 
prospect of being set free and of revisiting! Philippi (11%). 
Meantime, however, they are to show a united front? to their 
adversaries (12789), μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. 
Suffering must not daunt them, nor disintegrate them. Against 
the latter danger Paul urges (21:11) the duties of harmony and 
fellow-feeling (τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες, σύνψυχοι) which flow 
from a humility like that of Jesus Christ, and he reiterates § 
(212 = 127) his appeal for brotherly love (21718). As his own 
movements are uncertain, he promises to send Timotheus before 
long (2194, cp. 11), and also bespeaks a hearty welcome for their 
delegate, Epaphroditus, after his illness (275°), 

The letter swerves at this point into a philippic against Jews 
or Jewish Christian agitators + (3221). Paul tries to safeguard 
the Philippian church in advance against their intrigues by re- 
calling his own character and gospel as the true norm of 
Christianity, but the danger of internal friction is still present 
to his mind (3), and he proceeds to warn gently some 


1 Jatho (pp. 7-8) finds this already in’v.®, where he takes τοῦτο as referring 
to an ἐλθεῖν implied in ἐπιποθῶς This backward aspect of τοῦτο is possible 
(e.g. Demosth. de Corona, § 26, and Xen. Alem. ii. 2. 4, cp. Thuc. vi. 39), 
but hardly so natural here as the prospective sense. 

2 The occurrence of πολίτευμα in 3% suggests that πολιτεύεσθε here retains 
some of its communal associations. 

3In 2' (πληρωσατέ μου τὴν χαράν, positive motive), in 215 (ὅτι οὐκ els κενὸν 
ἔδραμον, negative motive) ; the former is resumed in 27:18, 

4They have nothing to do with the evangelists mentioned in 1% ; the 
‘atter preach Christ truly ; it is their motives, not the content of their gospel, 
to which Paul takes exception, 


PHILIPPIANS 167 


prominent individuals in the church against it (41:7) in a passage 
which is partly recapitulatory (cp. χαίρετε in 4! 4 as already in 218 
31; συνήθλησαν, 48= 177; and στήκετε 41, as in 127), but which 
flows over into the closing appeal of 489 (4° = 211) for harmony. 
In a parenthesis, he then thanks them (41°) for a fresh present 
of money which Epaphroditus had brought, and with some brief 
salutations (431-235) the letter ends. 

Timotheus is associated with Paul in the address (11), owing 
to his local associations (2? = Ac 16% 1) ; but the apostle writes 
in the first person throughout (even in 431), and indeed speaks 
of his companion as distinguished from himself (213-22, The 
only exception is in 317 (ἡμᾶς). 

The text presents few difficulties,* apart from the interpolations which 
have been conjectured (see below) in 1? and 257, The transposition in 116-17 
(for the chiasmus, see Ro 2%!%) is one of the few which have left traces in the 
textual material. Other conjectures of glosses (cp. Weisse’s Bettrage zur 
Kritik d. Paul. Briefe, 56 {.), e.g. in 11817 13? (el δὲ. . . καρπὸς ἔργου), 239 
3/819 (marginal gloss, Laurent), 37! (Briickner), 4°5 and 4.819 are due to 
inadequate exegesis for the most part. The style and vocabulary, viewed in 
the light of research into the κοινή, present no real obstacles to the accept- 
ance of the epistle as Pauline. The most noticeable feature, according to 
Nageli ( Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus, 80f.), is a tendency to employ several 
expressions, 6.9. ἐγείρειν, ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, τὰ ἔμπροσθεν, in a sense closer 
to that of literary Greek than to that of the LXX as heretofore. ‘‘ Paulus 
scheint sich also im Verkehr mit den Griechen nach und nach zu gunsten de; 
in der hdhern κοινή bevorzugten Gebrauches von der einen und andern bei 
den LXX beliebten Wortbedeutung emanzipiert zu haben.” The use of 
ἀρετή is a case in point ; Τ᾿ so is the absence of any OT citation. 

The iambic trimeter in 3! (ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ ὀκνηρόν, ὑμῖν δ᾽ ἀσφαλές) is not the 
only instance of rhythmical structure in the epistle. 2510 is specially impor- 
tant in this connection, as the balance of clauses bears on the exegesis of this 
carefully modulated section (J. Weiss, Bettrage zur paul. Rhetorik, 28 f.) :— 

1. (a) ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Oe GK 

(ὁ) ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών 
(c) ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπον 
(d) ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν, γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ 
σταυροῦ. 
2. (α) διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν 
(ὁ) καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα 
(c) ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ κτλ. 
(ad) καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος ᾿Τησοῦς Χριστός. 


*In 314 τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως apparently was read by Tertullian as ris 
ἀνεγκλήσεως and by Origen as τῆς ἀνεγλησίας. 

+ In this passage, 45", ‘‘it is as if one heard the ripple of the waves at the 
meeting of the two streams which have their source in Zion and the Parthenon ” 
(von Soden, p. 114). 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


The balancing of the clauses against one another, and the reiteration of 
the same word in the same or in successive clauses, are noticeable. 


§ 2. Occasion and date—Communications had already passed 
between the Christians of Philippi and Paul, not only during 
his residence at Thessalonika (41516), but at some subsequent 
period (418), when Epaphroditus had brought him a present 
of money. It is possible that the gift was accompanied by a 
letter. At any rate, the extant epistle is the reply to one received 
subsequently from the Philippians, who had evidently desired 
information about his prospects and health (11%), assured him 
of their prayers (119), wondered whether he, their καύχημα, 
would return to them (125), expressed their anxiety about the 
health of Epaphroditus (22°), and possibly apologised for not 
sending money to him sooner (41%), The latter point emerges 
in passages like 217 25. 80 as well as in 4105, where Paul is ap- 
parently trying to remove some fear which had been expressed 
by the Philippian Christians lest he should have been dissatisfied 
with “the smallness and the tardiness of their last remittance” 
(cp. Zahn, Z/VT. ὃ 30). 

The epistle was written toward the close of the διετία ὅλη of 
Ac 28%, not in the earlier part of the imprisonment. Paul is on 
the eve and edge of the final decision, with (11218) a period 
behind him during which considerable progress has been made 
in the local preaching and extension of the gospel, and his 
language does not imply that this new departure in the pro- 
paganda was stimulated by the mere novelty of his arrival. 
This argument is not affected by the fact that when Paul reached 
Rome, he already found a considerable body of Christians. He 
traces the flourishing character of the local church in no small 
measure to the stimulating effect produced by his own imprison- 
ment. Furthermore, the relations between Philippi and Paul 
presuppose an interval of time which cannot be fairly com- 
pressed within a few months. News of his arrival must have 
had time to reach the church; money was collected (235 418) 
and then sent by Epaphroditus, who fell sick after he reached 
the capital; news of this again floated back to Philippi, and 
Paul subsequently heard of the Philippians’ concern (2°). Not 
till then did he compose the present letter. Luke and Aris- 
tarchus were apparently (27°) no longer with him. 


This setting of the epistle (so, ¢.g., Godet, NZ. 427 f. ; Sabatier’s Pazé, 
250 f.; Reuss, Lipsius, Klopper, Gwynn, Ramsay, SP7. 357 f. ; McGiffert, 


PHILIPPIANS 169 


AA. 364-393; Bovon, M7 7héol. ii. 73-120; Bartlet, 44. 178 f. ; Schiifer, 
Einl. 133-146; H. A. A. Kennedy, £7. x. 22 f.; Gibb, Clemen, Bacon, 
Jacquier, Barth, Peake), which ranks it later than the other epistles of the 
Roman imprisonment has been challenged by three * rival hypotheses. 

(a) The attempt of several scholars (from Paulus, D. Schulz, Bottger’s 
Bettrage, ii. 46 f., Rilliet, and Thiersch, to Spitta and Macpherson, Zpheszans, 
86 f.) to place its composition at Czesarea (Ac 23%-26*) is to be set aside,t 
not only on account of the positive evidence ¢ pointing to Rome (1 432), 
but because the uncertain critical outlook of the apostle does not correspond 
to the situation at Caesarea when he was in no immediate danger of death. 
Not until he reached Rome did his life come into real peril at the hands of 
the Roman authorities. Besides, the large number of local preachers of the 
gospel (117) accords much better with the capital than with the provincial 
town of Czsarea; the latter cannot be said to have been a centre of vigorous 
Christian propaganda. Delays in a trial were perfectly natural in Rome, for 
the wheels of procedure did not always run the swifter as they neared the 
headquarters of the law. It required no such recent experience of Jewish 
agitators as that of Ac 217% to make Paul flash out into the language of 
Ph 3325, Timotheus is not known to have visited Rome, but this is an 
argument from silence which, in the scantiness of our available data for the 
period, is of little or no weight. Finally, the plea (Spitta, Ajgeschichte, 281) 
that the cupidity of Felix (Ac 2436) was aroused by the arrival of the money 
from Philippi (Ph 419), belongs to imaginative fiction rather than to historical 
reconstruction. Of the two other views which have been taken of the epistle’s 
date, apart from the Cesarean hypothesis, one (4) is that the terms of 113: 
(compared with Col 4") imply that the comparatively free dveria was over, 
and had been replaced by a stricter durance (so, ¢.g., Alford,§ Hofmann, 
Wohlenberg, Zahn, and Belser). This throws Phil. still later, but the lack of 
other evidence upon the course of the trial renders it impossible to be certain 
whether the apostle had exchanged his custodia Libera for one of closer restraint. || 
(c) Others again place the epistle earlier, in the opening period of the διετία 


*Four, if the epistle (cp. M. Albertz, SX., 1910, 551-594, ‘ueber die 
Abfassung des Philipperbriefes des Paulus zu Ephesus) could be placed in an 
Ephesian imprisonment, to which a few (e.g. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten?, 
pp. 171 f.) would give the other prison-epistles. 

+ Even Schenkel, Meyer, and Reuss, who put Col. Eph. and Philemon 
into the Czsarean period, emphatically relegate Philippians to Rome. 

1 Πραιτώριον might mean the 7. τοῦ ‘Hpddov of Ac 23%, but the proba- 
bilities lie between the pretorian guard and the Araefecti praetorio or 
judicial authorities of the imperial court. 

§ Summer of 63 ; early in 63 (W. T. Bullock, Smith’s 2. 8.1 ii. 839-843). 

| If a genuine fragment or tradition lies below 2 Ti 4%, it might 
corroborate the setting of Phil. towards the end of Paul’s confinement: cp 
2 Ti 45=Col 4", 2 Ti 45=Ph 2” and 1%, 4%-=Ph 2™!- ; only, by the time 
Timotheus reached him (on this theory), Luke had gone. Both Krenkel 
(Bettrage, 424f., 442f.) and Kreyenbihl (Zvang. d. Wahrhezt, i. 213f.), 
like Erbes, refer 2 Ti 4'® to Paul’s defence before Felix. These hypotheses 
fall, however, with the case for the Cesarean site of the epistle, 


170 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


(so Blzek, Ewald, Lightfoot, pp. 30-46 ; Farrar, St. Paz/, ch. xlvi. ; Moule ; 
Beyschlag ; Sanday ; Smith’s D&.? i. 627 ; Hort, 70. 115-129; Trenkle, Zzn/. 
49-50; Lock, 2928. i. 718-719), partly for reasons already met by anticipation 
(see above, p. 168), partly because Philippians represents a less advanced 
stage in the development of the church than Colossians (and Ephesians). 
The latter fact may be granted, but the influence must be disputed. Neither 
to place Philippians among the later, nor Galatians among the earlier, 
epistles, is it sufficient to lay stress upon resemblances of style and a systematic 
evolution of thought. ‘‘The tone of Co/. and Apes. is determined by the 
circumstances of the churches addressed. The great cities of Asia were on 
the highway of the world, which traversed the Lycos valley, and in them 
development took place with great rapidity. But the Macedonians were a 
simple-minded people in comparison with Ephesus and Laodicea and 
Colossai, living further away from the great movements of thought. It was 
not in Paul’s way to send to Philippi an elaborate treatise against a subtle 
speculative heresy, which had never affected that church” (Ramsay, SP7. 
359). The predominance of dogmatic teaching in Col. (and Eph.) and the 
resemblances between Rom. and Phil. do not necessarily imply that Phil. lay 
between Rom. and Col. (Eph.) in a chronological and logical sequence. 
Such characteristics are due to the variety of objects and interests which 
confronted the apostle as he turned to the Asiatic and the Macedonian 
churches. To arrange the epistles in the order and for the reasons suggested, 
e.g., by Lightfoot, is to confuse the parade-ground with the battle-field, where 
quick phases and unexpected transitions often drive the general to fight twice 
on the same ground and to develop sudden movements in order to checkmate 
crises which were unforeseen. It is much more true to life to take each of the 
prison-epistles upon its own merits, as an outcome of Paul’s mood and duty at 
the time being, than to classify them, for reasons of style and matter, in 
plausible but unnatural groups. The priority of Col. to Phil. is therefore 
unaffected by the fuller theology of the former. When Eph. is reckoned post- 
Pauline, this becomes all the more clear, but even when it is attributed to 
Paul himself, the place of Phil. as the climax of the Pauline correspondence 
remains upon the whole more true than any other re-arrangement of the 
epistles to the data of the period. The time is too short for such a develop- 
ment as Lightfoot’s theory would postulate. 


§ 3. Authenticity—Doubts upon the Pauline authorship were 
voiced during last century, on four accounts: (a) alleged traces of 
imitation in the epistle, (ὁ) ecclesiastical anachronisms, (¢) gnostic 
controversies, and (4) doctrinal discrepancies between the epistle 
and the other Pauline letters, especially Gal., Cor., and Romans. 
(a) The literary argument is barely worth refuting. The style‘and 
vocabulary (see above) offer no real difficulty, and the epistle 
is marked by the genuinely Pauline traits of courtesy and 
affection, by the blending of humility and authority, the digres- 
sions, the warm, swift touches of feeling, and the devout passion 
for Christ, which are the water-marks of Paul’s mind, It is true 


PHILIPPIANS 171 


that a passage like 118 breathes “a certain resignation to which 
we are not accustomed in the author of Galatians and 2 Corin- 
thians. But resignation is the general characteristic of these last 
writings, wherein his moods are strangely mingled” (Hausrath, 
iv. 167). Neither in this respect nor in any other is the epistle 
unnatural under the circumstances, much less unworthy of the 
Paul we know. Baur, indeed, found the epistle ‘characterised 
by a monotonous repetition of what has been already said, by a 
want of any profound and masterly connection of ideas, and by a 
certain poverty of thought,” whilst van Manen dubbed it nebulous, 
unintelligible, and high-flown. So did Johnson judge of Gray. 
The perverse interpretation of 479 as a series of references to parties in the 
early church is now abandoned upon almost all hands, though the γνήσιε 
σύνζυγε of 4° baffles explanation. If Σύνξυγε is a proper name, as is most 


likely, it is needless to interpret σύνξζυγε of Lydia or Paul’s wife (which would 
require γνησία), or even of Epaphroditus, Timotheus, etc. 


(ὁ) The words σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις in 11 are 
admittedly strange. No other epistle of Paul mentions any 
officials in its address, while ἐπίσκοποι and διάκονοι are not only 
collectively but singly absent from his writings. The former may 
here be used in the sense of Ac 2078, the latter in that of Ro 127, 
and their specific mention may be due to the gifts received by 
Paul, which would come through the hands of the officials in 
charge of the local finance; but there is at least a case for regard- 
ing the words as a gloss inserted by some second-century editor, 
when the epistle came into use as part of the Canon in the services 
of the church (so Schmiedel, 2.82. 3147-3148, after Briickner and 
Volter). This is, at any rate, better than to keep them and throw 
suspicion on the entire epistle, or to emend them into ἐπισκόπῳ 
καὶ διακόνοις (Linwood). If such catholicising glosses are to be 
admitted anywhere in the NT, this is as obvious a place as any. 

(c) Recent research has found the background of the 
categories in φῦ, not in the Valentinian gnosis, as Baur and 
Hoekstra * imagined, but in the earlier religious speculations + 

* Pfleiderer (see below) still adheres to this notion of ‘‘a reference to the 
myth in the Ophite and Valentinian gnosis of the Sophia which desired to 
unite itself on equal terms with the primal Deity of the Father, or of the sub- 
ordinate demiurge Jaldabaoth, who attempted to misuse his god-like power of 
lordship in order to put himself in the place of the highest God.” 

+ Cp. Clemen’s Religionsgeschichtliche Erklirung des NT, 122f.; M. 


Dibelius, ae Getsterwelt tm Glauben des Paulus (1909), 10 f. . and Bousset’s 
Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, 160f. 


172 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


upon a pre-existent original Being or Urmensch in heaven which 
are preserved, e.g., in Poimandres (cp. 12f., where the divine 
μορφή is also attributed to this Man, who ἀθάνατος ὧν καὶ πάντων 
τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἔχων τὰ θνητοῦ πάσχει ὑποκείμενος TH εἱμαρμένῃ" 
ὑπεράνω γὰρ dv τῆς ἁρμονίας ἐναρμόνιος γέγονε δοῦλος) and the 
Ascensio Isaie (107), where the Lord ‘descended into the 
firmament where dwelleth the ruler of this world,” but where, 
although his form was like that of the spirits, the latter refused 
to do homage to him, since ‘‘they were envying one another and 
fighting” (cp. Charles’ ed. p. 74: contrast οὐχ ἁρπαγμόν κτλ.). 
Some analogous phrases in Zest. Χ77 Pair., e.g. Zab 7° (ὄψεσθε 
θεὸν ἐν σχήματι ἀνθρώπου) and Benj. 107 (ἐν μορφῇ ἀνθρώπου ἐν 
ταπεινώσει) are probably Christian interpolations. 

(4) The weakness of the attempt to find gnosticism in 25 
and typical or second-century allusions in 42° (γνήσιε σύνξζυγε -- 
Peter, etc.), was promptly acknowledged by Holsten, whose 
difficulties centred on the supposed inconsistencies of the epistle 
with Paul in regard to the conceptions of Christ and salvation. 
He still shared the tendency to see in 428 a subtle effort to 
reconcile by way of allegory the Jewish and the Gentile 
Christians, but he felt most some apparent discrepancies 
between Phil. and the Hauptoriefe. 


Holsten’s general theory of the epistle’s origin, however, is even more 
improbable than Baur’s, since it is extremely difficult to imagine how such an 
epistle could have been accepted by the church shortly after Paul’s death, 
had it been composed by a Paulinist who desired to write and encourage the 
local Christians after their great founder had passed away. His particular 
objections to the christology of 25* as un-Pauline (cp. 2 Co 89 where the so- 
called christological reference is also adduced for practical purposes), on the 
score of its inconsistency with the pre-existent heavenly Man of Ro 8 etc., 
depend on too narrow an exegesis (cp. Schmidt, of. czt. 54 f. ; Weiffenbach, 
op. ctt, 64f.; and Holtzmann, V7' Theologie, ii. 88 f., ‘*somit haben wir kein 
Grund, die christologische Darstellung Ph 2°"! als incompatibel mit derjenigen 
der Hauptbriefe aus dem paulin. Lehrbegriff auszuscheiden”).* Briickner 
(ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ. . . ws ἄνθρωπος), Weisse (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ and μορφὴν 
δούλου. . . ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν), Schmiedel (om. ἀλλά in 27, all of 2° except 
ὅς, and ἐπουρανίων... καταχθονίων in 2.9), and Pfleiderer (i. 321-323) all 
omit more or less of 2%7 as interpolated, but for no cogent reasons. Their 
procedure, however, suggests a fresh set of hypotheses with regard to the 
unity of the epistle. 


8. 4. Jntegrity.—These hypotheses either distinguish between 
α Pauline nucleus and editorial matter, or .between two Pauline 


* This is all the more obvious when Colossians is accepted as Pauline. 


PHILIPPIANS 173 


notes. Both, but especially the latter, start from the abrupt turn 
in 3! (τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν ὑμῖν κτλ.). It is a fair inference from these 
words that Paul had written * already to the Christians of Philippi 
(so, e.g., Haenlein, Bertholdt, Liinemann, Flatt, Bleek, Wiesinger, 
Ewald, Jatho, Schenkel, Meyer, Mangold, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, 
Hofmann, Meyer, etc.) ; the various attempts to explain τὰ αὐτά 
from the context and contents of the canonical epistle are more 
or less strained. Paul had not spoken so often or so amply of 
rejoicing (14 238), that his hearers would feel it irksome to have 
χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ repeated to them. Some more serious and 
vital topic is required. Δικαιόσυνη is not sufficiently emphatic 
in the following paragraph to make it probable that Paul was 
half apologising for speaking of it (Holsten), and the least 
unlikely solution is that either the danger of dissensions 
(Lightfoot) or the errorists are in his mind. Against the 
latter he may have had occasion previously to warn them,t out 
of his mournful experiences in Asia and Achaia (31= 318 ods 
πολλάκις ἔλεγον ὑμῖν). The readiest explanation of 31% is to 
suppose (with Ewald, Schenkel, Reuss, etc.) that Paul started 
to complete or supplement what he had already written, possibly 
because some fresh tidings from Philippi had reached him in 
the interval, There is nothing specifically un-Pauline even in 
310: to justify the hypothesis { that the extant epistle consists of 
a genuine and a later letter, which some editor of the second 
century has patched together. 

The use of the plural in Polykarp’s letter to the Philippians 
‘lii.), where he speaks of Paul having written ἐπιστολάς εἰς ἃς 
ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε, δυνηθήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθε cis τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίστιν, 
is indecisive ; ἐπιστολαί like /itterae, might be used of a single 

* Without pressing γράφειν unduly, one may say that the scope of the 
expression would cover more than merely oral communications from Paul 
himself or through his delegates. Ewald found traces of such written com- 
munications somewhat precariously in 212 and 318, 

Tt Volter (Paulus u. Seine Briefe, 319 f.) thinks that the editor must have 
had in his mind the warning of 2 Co 111%, 

¢ Schrader (der Apostel Paulus, v. 233 f.) took 3!-4® as an unauthentic 
interpolation; Voélter (77., 1892, 10-44, 117-146) separated a genuine 
Pauline note (112 exc. o. ἐπισκ. K. διακ. 18-7 12-14. 18b-26 917-20. 22-30 410-20. 
41. 23) from material (181+ 27-80 21-16 410. 31 41-9, 32) dating from the reign of 
Trajan or Hadrian, the redactor being responsible for 1)+ 15-18 231 215; but 
he now (Paulus und Seine Briefe, 286 f.) detects the Pauline original in 1-4 


(except σὺν ἐπ. x. διακόνοις), 157. 12-29 (except καὶ ἐπιχορ. τοῦ πνευμ. I, Χ. 
and εἴτε δ. ὕ. εἴτε δ, θ.), 155. 25 217-18 25-80 410-21, 


174 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


dispatch. Yet elsewhere in Polykarp (cp. ch. xiii.), as in the 
NT itself (τ Co 16° etc.), the distinction between singular and 
plural in the use of the term is carefully observed ; nor would the 
use of efrs/o/ae in the Lat. version of ch. xi. of Polykarp’s epistle 
(in quibus laborau't beatus Paulus, qui estis in principio epistolae 
eius) invalidate this argument, since ef7sto/ae there is not genit. 
sing * but nom. plur. (cp. 2 Co 3). The probabilities therefore are 
that Polykarp knew of more than one Pauline letter to Philippi, 
and the alternatives are to suppose (i.) that some other previous 
letter (or letters) to that church did not survive, or (11.) that 
Polykarp was referring loosely to 2 Thessalonians, which was 
also written to a neighbouring Macedonian church. In favour 
of (i.) it may be pointed out that if its contents were similar, as 
ex hypothesi they must have been, to those of the canonical 
epistle, there wou'd be less chance of it surviving. If it be 
argued that such a fate would be unlikely, when it had survived to 
the age of Polykarp, the answer is that Polykarp’s language does 
not necessarily imply more than that the church had in the 
earlier period of its history (416) received more than one letter 
from the apostle. (ii.) More probably, however, the reference 
covers the Thessalonian epistles (or 2 Thessalonians), of which 
the Philippian church would possess a copy ; for in addressing 
the Philippians themselves (xi. 3) he actually uses language (de 
uobis etenim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis) which is palpably a 
reminiscence of 2 Thessalonians (cp. 14), as if the latter epistle 
were somehow associated in his mind with Philippi. Tertullian 
(ad Scorp. 13) similarly quotes Phil. as if it were addressed to 
Thessalonika, and the three Macedonian epistles seem to have 
been often grouped together in the archives of the early church 
(Zahn). The ἐπιστολαί of Polykarp are most readily to be 
understood in this sense, Ζ.6., as a collection of Pauline epistles, 
including not only Philippians but those addressed to the 
neighbouring church of Thessalonika (cp. Harnack in Z'U., 1900, 
v. 3. 86 f., and Wrede in ZUV., 1903, 94 f.). 


Unlike 1 Co 5° and Col 4", the allusion in Ph 3! did not prompt any 
writer in the early church to produce an apocryphal letter to the Philippians. 
The existence of such a letter may be inferred from the Syriac Catalogus 
Sinaiticus (cp. Mrs. Lewis in Studia Sinaitica, i. 11 f., and W. Bauer, Der 
Apostolos der Syrer, 1903, pp. 34 f., 37 f.), which mentions two Philippian 


* Nestle’s conjecture, ἀποστολῆς for ἐπιστολῆς in the original (cp. Zahn, 
INT. i. 536), is ingenious but unnecessary. 


PHILIPPIANS 175 


epistles ; but, as it omits 1 Tim., its evidence is not trustworthy, and no clear 
trace of any such apocryphon has been preserved. The language of Polykarp 
does not yield any proof, while the casual remark of Georgius Syncellus 
(Chron., ed. Dindorf, i. 651 : τούτου [z.e. Clement of Rome] καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος 
ἐν τῇ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους μέμνηται πρώτῃ ἐπιστολῇ) may be an oversight. 


The internal evidence fails upon the whole to add any valid 
proof for a partition-theory, even as advocated by Hausrath 
(iv. 162 f.) and especially by Bacon (Zhe Story of St. Paul, 
pp. 367 f.), both of whom put 3-4 earlier than 1-2, as a separate 
Pauline letter ; but 22! is not necessarily incompatible with 114 
and 4531; in 221 Paul vents, with some exaggeration, his annoy- 
ance at finding it impossible to persuade any of his local 
coadjutors to undertake the mission to Philippi, and accuses 
them of selfishness and worldliness (so in 2 Ti 410). The 
errorists of 32", as has been already noted, are not mentioned 
in 118, And, although this hypothesis relieves the epistle of the 
unwieldly postscript (31%), it does not work out with anything 
like the same plausibility * as the similar view of 2 Co 10-13. 
Still more unconvincing is the earlier theory of Heinrichs 
(Comment. tiber Philipp., 1810) and Paulus (de tempore scriptae 
prioris ad Tim. atque ad Philipp. epist. Pauli, 1799), elaborated 
from a hint of S. Le Mayne’s Varia Sacra, ii. 332 f. (1685), 
which discovered in 3}-- a special letter addressed either to an 
esoteric circle of the apostle’s friends or the authorities of the 
local church (in spite of 4!°!), the rest of the canonical epistle 
(1.6. 11-31 421-28) being intended for the local church in general 
(so Paulus, Hezdelberg. Jahrbiicher, 1812, 702 f., confining the 
special letter to 3!-4°). Psychologically, the change of tone 
from 21% with its farewell note, to 32% with its sudden outburst, 
is quite credible in a writer like Paul, who is composing not a 
treatise but an informal letter, probably amid many interrup- 
tions. The hiatus is striking, but it need not denote the place 
at which two notes have been joined.t The least violent 
explanation would be to conjecture (with Ewald) that 31~4! and 

* Cp. Belser’s Ezn/. 555 f., and Clemen’s Pau/us, i. 130 f. (where he 
retracts the earlier view of his Einheztlichkett d. paul. Briefe, 133 f.). Each 
of the letters postulated by the partition-theories must have been mutilated ; 
furthermore, as Pfleiderer points out, ‘‘the first lacks any expression of 
thanks for the gift of the Philippians, which (2%) must have already been 
made.” 

+ Thus the phrase τὸ λοιπόν approximates to οὖν (cp. Mt 26%, Ac 27™, 
1 Th 4}, 2 Ti 4° etc.) ; it need not have a final sense. 


176 THF CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 


43. represent a couple of postscripts which were appended to 
the original letter. 41%, however, is hardly an after-thought ; 
it rather rounds off the topics interrupted by the disgression of 
git, 410 (ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ μεγάλως) and 5315 (χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ) 
is a good sequence, but in a letter it is not affected by the 
intervening passage. It is doubtful, therefore, if the attempts 
to analyse the epistle have proved much more satisfactory than 
the similar movements of literary inquiry into the first Philippic 
of Demosthenes, where criticism has swung back in the main to a 
conservative position (see A. Baran’s article in Wiener Studien, 


1884, 173-205). 


§ 5. History in early church (cp. NTA. 53f., 71f., 94f.; 
R. J. Knowling’s Zestimony of St. Paul to Christ, 111f., and 
Gregory’s Canon and Text of NT. 205 f.). 


The first indubitable echoes of the epistle occur in Polykarp; cp. i. 1 
συνεχάρην ὑμῖν μεγάλως ἐν Kuply=2" χαίρω καὶ ovyxalpw πᾶσιν ὑμῖν, 4)” 
ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν Kupiw μεγάλως ; ii. 1 ᾧ [ἡ.4. Christ] ὑπετάγη τὰ πάντα ἐπουράνια 
καὶ émlyeca==2! 37 ; ix. 2, οὗτοι πάντες οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἔδραμον = 215 (rather than 
Gal 23, where the context is different) ; xii. 3, et pro inimicis crucis = 318 
τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, and the allusion in iii. 2 to Paul, ὃς καὶ 
ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολάς. The earlier allusions in Ignatius are less 
distinct, yet probably reliable: Smyrna. iv. 2, πάντα ὑπομένω αὐτοῦ pe 
ἐνδυναμοῦντος -- 4", the occurrence of κατ᾽ ἐρίθειαν and κατὰ κενοδοξίαν (2* δ) 
in Philad. i. 1, viii. 2, and Smyrn. xi. 3, τέλειοι ὄντες τέλεια καὶ φρονεῖτετε 3.5 
ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο PpovGuev. In Clem. Rom. xxi. I (ἐὰν μὴ ἀξίως αὐτοῦ 
πολιτευόμενοι KTA., Cp. iii. 4), till we have better evidence for the phrase 
being common, it is fair to admit a trace of 17 (μόνον ἀξιῶς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ πολιτευέσθε), and the same may be said of xlvii. 2, where Clement 
speaks of the Corinthians receiving Paul’s epistle ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, his 
own phrase in Phil 4% In the Martyrdom of Polykarp (i. 2), 2*is quoted, 
and in Diognet. v. 9 (ἐπὶ γῆς διατριβοῦσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ πολιτεύονται) there 
may be an allusion to 3%. The epistle was used also by Theodotus the 
Valentinian and the Sethites; it is quoted in the epistle from Lyons and 
Vienne (Eus. 7. Ε΄. v. 2. 2=2°). Earlier it appeared in Marcion’s ἀπόστολος, 
as at a later period in the Muratorian Canon, whilst Irenzeus (iv. 18. 4= 4.8) 
Clem. Alex. (repeatedly), and Tertullian cite its contents, 


CHAPTER II. 
THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE. 


(A) THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 


LITERATURE.—(a) Editions of synoptic gospels :—J. Brent (Commentarii 
tn Mattheum, Marcum et Lucam, Tiibingen, 1590); H. E. G. Paulus, 
LExegetisches Handbuch riber die dret ersten Euglien (Heidelberg, 1830-3) ; 
Baumgarten-Crusius (Jena, 1844-5); G. H. A. Ewald, Dze dre? Euglien 
(Gottingen, 1850); F. Bleek, Synoptzsche Erklarung d. drei ersten Evglien 
(1862); H. Sevin, Die dret ersten Evglien synoptisch zusammengestellt 
(Wiesbaden, 1866); L. Bonnet? (Lausanne, 1896); G. L. Cary (New York, 
1900); A. B. Bruce (ZG7.? 1901); H. J. Holtzmann (HC.® 1g01)*; 
Salmon, 7he Human Element in the Gospels. A Commentary upon the 
Synoptic narrative (posthumous, London, 1907); A. Loisy, Les Evangiles 
Synoptigues* (1907-8); J. Weiss (SNV7.? 1907); C. G. Montefiore, Zhe 
Synoptic Gospels, edited with an Introduction and a Commentary (1909). 

(ὁ) Studies—Lessing, meue Hypothese tiber die Evglisten als bloss 
menschliche Geschichtschreiber betrachtet (1778); Koppe, Marcus non 
epitomator Matthaei (1782); Griesbach, Commentatio qua Marci evangelium 
totum e Matthaet et Luce commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (1790 f.) ;} 
G. C. Storr, De Fonte evangeliorum Mt. et Luce* (1794); Gieseler, Historisch- 
hrit. Versuch tiber die Entstehung u. die. friihesten Schicksale der schriftlichen 
Evglien (1818, oral tradition); Principal Campbell, On the Gospels (Edin. 
1821); Hug (Z27/.8 ii. 1-243, 1826); Knobel, De origine Marci (1831) ; 
Schleiermacher (SA., 1832, 735-768) * ; Lachmann (SA., 1835, 570f.)* ; C. 
G. Wilke, der Urevangelist, oder exeg.-kritische Untersuchung uber das 
Verwandtschaftsverhaliniss der drei ersten Evglien (1838); E. F. Gelpke, 
Ueber die Anordnung der Erzihlungen in den synoptischen Evglien (1839) ; 
F. J. Schwartz, Meue Untersuchungen tuber d. Verwandtschaftsverhdltniss 
der syn. Evuglien (1844); Bruno Bauer, A7vitik d. evangelische Geschichte 
ad. Synopt.? (1846); F. C. Baur, Xvetesche Untersuchungen uber die 
kanonischen Evglien (1847); A. Norton, Zvddences of the Genuineness of the 
Gospels (1847); Ritschl, 7heol. Jahrb. (1851), 481-538 (‘‘On the present 
position of Synoptic Criticism”); Smith, Dzssertation on the Origin and 
Connection of the Gospels (1853); K. R. Kostlin, Der Ursprung und die 

1The first vigorous appearance of this unlucky and prolific dandelion, 
which it has taken nearly a century of opposition (led by Storr, Knobel, 
Lachmann, Wilke, Weisse, B. Weiss, Holtzmann, Weizsaicker, and Wendt) tu 
eradicate. 

12 


178 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


Korposition d. synoptischen Evglien (Stuttgart, 1853); A. Hilgenfeld, Dre 
Euglien nach threr Entstehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutung (1854); C. H. 
Weisse, der Euglienfrage in threm gegenwartigem Stadium (1856); Plitt, de com- 
posttione evang. synopt. (1860); G. WEichthal, Les Lvangiles (Paris, 1863) ; 
H. J. Holtzmann, ate Synoptische Euglien (1863)* ; Weizsicker, Unier- 
suchungen tiber die evangelische Geschichte (1864, second ed. 1901)* ; Jahn, 
Beitrage zur Kritik d. syn. Evglien (1866) ; Sabatier, Sources de la Vie de 
Jésus (Paris, 1866); Scholten, das d/test. Evglm (1869, Eng, tr. of Het oudste 
Evglm, 1868) ; G. Volkmar, die Euglien, oder Marcus und die synopse... .? 
(1876) ; Bruno Bauer, Christus und die Caesaren (1877, pp. 356f., orig. 
gospel imbedded in Mark and Marcion’s Luke) ; G. Wetzel, Die synoptischen 
Euglien . . . (1883, oral tradition); A. Jacobsen, Untersuchungen tiber die 
evang. Geschichte (1883); Holsten, de synoptischen Evglien nach der Form 
threr Inhalts (1885); Wendt (Lehre Jesu, 1886 ; second ed. 1901); Schulze, 
Evangelientafel? (1886); W. Briickner, die vier Euglien (1887); Fillion, 
Introd. générale aux évangiles (1889); F. H. Woods (SB. ii. 59 f.)* ; 
Westcott, Jutroduction to Study of Four Gospels’ (1889); A. Wright, Zhe 
Composition of the Gospels (1890); W. Sanday (Z xf.‘ iii. 81 f., 177f., 302f., 

345f., 411f.); F. P. Badham, Zhe Formation of the Gospels? (i852) ; 
Alexander, Leading [deas of Gospels (new ed. 1892) ; Resch, Aussercanonische 
Paralleltexte (i. 1893, ii. 1894, iii, 1895, in 7U.)*; H. von Soden ‘ das Interesse 
ἃ, apost. Zeitalters an d. evang. Geschichte’ (7%A. 1892) ; Gloag, /ntroduction 
to Syn. Gospels (Edin. 1895); A. J. Jolley, The Synoptic Problem for English 
Readers (1893) ; Roehrich, La Composition des évangiles (1897); Harnack, 
ACL. ii. 1. 651-700; Resch, Die Loyia Jesu (Leipzig, 1898) ; McGiffert (4.4. 
479 f.); Wernle, die Synoptische Frage (1899)*.; P. Calmes, Comment se 
sont formés les évangiles (Paris, 1899); W. Soltau, Zine Licke d. 
synoptischen Forschung (1899), Unsere Euglien (1901); V. H. Stanton 
(Hastings’ DB. ii. 234-249); Abbott! and Schmiedel (ZAz. 1761-1830, 
1840-96)*; U. Fracassini, ‘La critica del vangeli nel secolo xix’ (Studz 
Religiost, 1901, 30-52, 309-331) ; Moffatt (HN7.,? 1901, 11f., 258 f., 635 f.) 5 
A. Loisy, Etudes evangéliques (Paris, 1902); J. A. Robinson, Zhe Study 
of the Gospels* (1903); J. Halévy, Ztudes evangéliques (Paris, 1903) ; 
Bonaccorssi, 7 tre primz Vangeli el la critica letteraria (1904); H. von 
Soden, Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (1904); Ἐς. D, Burton, 
(Introduction to Gospels, Chicago, 1904); E. D. Burton, Some Principles of 
Literary Criticism and their Application to the Synoptic Problem (Decennial 
Publications of Chicago University, vol. v., 1904) * ; E. Mangenot (Vigoroux’ 
DB. ii. 2058-2097) ; J. Wellhausen, Aznlectung in die drei ersten Evglien* 
(1905); N. J. D. White (DCG. i. 663-671); Bosanquet and Wenham 
(Oudlines of the Synoptic Record, 1905); Jacquier (77. ii., 1905) ; Loisy, 
Morceaux Pexégese (1906) ; Jiilicher, Meue Linten in die Kritik d. Evang. 
Uberlieferung (1906) ; J. E. Carpenter, 7he First Three Gospels* (London, 
1906); C. E. Scott Moncrieff, St. Mark and the Triple Tradition (1907) ; 
P. Feine (PRE. xix. 277-381); Blass, £7. xviii. (‘ Origin and Character 
of our Gospels’); G. H. Miiller, Zu» Synopse (Untersuchung tiber die 


'See the discussions in Contemp.’ Review (vol. xiii.) between Jannaris 
(Pp. 37-49, 532-539) and Abbott (249-254). : 


SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 179 


Arbettswetse des Lk. τ. Mt. und thre Quellen), 1908; F. Nicolardot, Les 
proctaés de Rédaction des trois premiers Evangélistes (Paris, 1908)*; T. 
Nicol, The Gospels tn the Earliest Church History (1908); J. R. Cohu, Zhe 
Gospels in the Light of Modern Kesearch (1909) ; E. Wendling, ‘ Synoptische 
Studien’ (ZNVW., 1907, 256f., 1908, 96f., 1909, 46f., 219 f.) ; W. Flinders 
Petrie, The Growth of the Gospels as shown by Structural Criticism (1910). 

(c) Surveys! of recent criticism :—A. Menzies (Review of Theology and 
Philosophy, iv. 757f., v. 1-173 J. Weiss (7R., 1908, 92f., 122f.); 
Wendling (Z/V7., 1908, 135 [.); [Β. ΝΥ. Bacon (Harvard Theol. Review, 
1908, 48-69) ; H. L. Jackson (Camiridge Biblical Essays, 423 f.). 

(2) The best synopsis of the textual data is Rushbrooke’s Synopticon 
(1880), but smaller and convenient manuals are published in English by 
W..A. Stevens and E. D. Burton (Boston, 1894); A. Wright (Syzopsi's of the 
Gospels?, 1903); Colin Campbell (7zrs¢ Three Gospels in Greek*, 1899), and 
J. M. Thompson (Zhe Syzoptze Gospels, 1910); in German by Veit (D7e 
Synoptische Parallelen, 1897); Heineke (Synopse der dret ersten Euglien, 
1898), and Huck (Synopse der drei ersten Evglien*, 1910). The older 
literature of synopses (usually=harmonies), includes Tatian’s ‘ Diatessaron’ 
[cp. Zhe Earliest Life of Christ ever compiled, by Dr. J. H. Hill, Edin. 
1894]* ; Ammonius (third century) ; Augustine (de consensu evangelistarum, 
cp. H. J. Vogels in Bardenhewer’s Azblische Studien, xiii. 5); A. Bruich 
(Monotessaron breve ex quat. evang., Cologne, 1539) ; Salmeron (Comment. in 
evang. historiam, Madrid, 1598) ; Calvin ; Osiander ; Chemnitz (Harmonia, 
1704); Bengel’s Harmonte (1736); M‘Knight, Harmony of the Gospels 
(1763); Planck, Entwurf einen neuen synopt. Zusammen. (1809); Roediger’s 
Synopsis (1829); H. N. Clausen, Quatt. evang. tabule synopticae (Copen- 
hagen, 1829); J. S. Thompson, 4 WMono/essaron (Baltimore, 1828-9) ; 
Gresswell, Harmonia evangelica (Oxford, 1830) ; R. Chapman, Gé. Harmony 
of Gospels (1836) ; Lant Carpenter? (4 harmony or syn. arrangement of the 
gospels, 1838); De Wette and Lucke’s Synofszs? (1842) ; Gehringer (1842) ; 
Wieseler, Chron. Synopsis der vier Evglien (1843, Eng. tr., Cambridge, 1864) ; 
Robinson (Boston, 1845, ed. Riddle, 1892); R. Anger, Synopsis Evang. 
Mt. Mk, Lucae (1852); Patrizi, De Evangelits (1852); W. Stroud, A new 
Gk. Harmony of the four Gospels (London, 1853) ; Sevin (1866) ; Gardiner 
(Andover, 1871) ; Εν, Salmon, Analysis of the Four Parallel Gospels (1876), 
also Zhe Parallel Gospels (London, 1876); Fillion, Synopsis evangelica 
(Paris, 1882); Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangelica’ (1891); C. C. James, A 
Harmony of the Gospels (1892); J. A. Broadus, 4 Harmony of the Gospels in 
the Revised Verston® (New York, 1898), and J. C. Rambaud, Harmonia et 
synopsis* (Paris, 1898). 


§ 1. Zhe documentary hypothesis. — Felix quit potutt rerum 
cognoscere causas. ‘This felicity has not yet been the portion of 
investigators into the literary origin of the synoptic gospels, 
but the subtle and exhaustive processes of criticism, which 


1 Flistorical sketches of research in Gloag, of. cét. pp. 44 f.; Meignan, 
Les évangiles et la critique au XiXe siéde (Paris, 1864); Feine (of. ctt.) 
Jacquier (V7. ii. 284-355), and Zahn (/N7/. ὃ 50). 


180 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


have been applied to the synoptic problem since Schleiermacher, 
have at last resulted in (a) the conclusion that the problem 
is primarily one of literary criticism. The gospels are books 
made out of books ; none of them is a document which simply 
transcribes the oral teaching of an apostle or of apostles. Their 
agreements and differences cannot be explained except on the 
hypothesis of a more or less close literary relationship, and while 
oral tradition is a wera causa, it is only a subordinate factor 
in the evolution of our canonical Greek gospels. (ὁ) Secondly, 
the priority of Mark to Matthew and Luke no longer requires 
to be proved. Whatever modifications and qualifications 
it may be necessary to introduce into this general thesis, the 
starting-point of research is the working hypothesis that the 
order and outline of the second canonical gospel lay before 
the writers of Matthew and Luke, who employed it more or less 
freely as a framework into which they introduced materials from 
other sources, 


(a) The oral hypothesis (Westcott, Godet, Wetzel, Veit, Wright) assumes 
that the gospel was officially drawn up by the primitive apostles or by one of 
them (Peter, Matthew), and that, by dint of repetition, the various cycles of 
narrative and discourse became stereotyped before passing into written form. 
“ΤῊ common element of our three synoptic gospels was not a mere cento 
of sayings of Jesus, or of anecdotes of His actions, but an oral Gospel which 
gave a continuous history of His life, from His baptism by John to His 
crucifixion” (Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, pp. 27f.). It further 
requires a definite order of teachers or catechists who made it their business 
to teach this oral gospel. The necessity of a recourse to such assumptions is 
even less favourable than the impossibility, upon this theory, of giving any 
rational account of how the large sections in Mt. and Lk., which Mk. omits, 
ever came into existence and into the special places which they occupy.* No 
appeals to the Oriental memory, with its extraordinary power of retentiveness 
(cp. Margoliouth in Christian Afolegetics, 1903, 48 f.) + will suffice to explain 
the intricate variations and coincidences in the synoptic gospels, without 
involving artificial reconstructions of the early church’s attitude to the sayings 
of Jesus. The detailed proof of this, with a thoroughgoing refutation of the 
oral hypothesis, is led by Zahn (/V7. 11. 408f.), Chavannes (Revue de 
Théologie et Philosophie, 1904, 138-160), and Stanton (GHD. ii. 17 f.), more 
briefly by Schmiedel (Zz. 1845-6) and Peake (/V7. 104f.). 

* Even a resolute adherent of the theory, like Dr. Wright (27. xxi. 
211f.), now admits that documents were in use from the first, for catechetical 
purposes. To call the documents ‘temporary’ does not conceal the 
collapse of the oral hypothesis. 

+ See also G. H. Putnam’s Authors and their Public in Ancient Times* 


(1894), pp. 106f. 


THE ORAL HYPOTHESIS [81 


One objection to the oral hypothesis —- viz. the gospel’s preservation in 
Greek instead of Aramaic—is removed by the cognate hypothesis of a primi- 
tive Semitic gospel upon which the synoptists have all drawn (Resch, Abbott, 
Briggs) ; but, although the theory helps to account for one or two Greek 
variants by pointing out the possibility that they may go back to the omission, 
confusion, or transposition of consonants in the Hebrew original, as a complete 
explanation of the textual phenomena it fails. There is perhaps no ante- 
cedent improbability in Hebrew being still written between A.D. 40 and 50 
in Palestine ; the newly discovered fragments of Ecclesiasticus show that a 
Jew could write in fair Biblical Hebrew long after it had ceased to be spoken 
generally. But why should an evangelist of Jesus? If any Semitic gospel is 
to be postulated, Aramaic (so, e.g., Lessing, Eichhorn) is much more likely 
than Hebrew to have been its language, and all the relevant facts of the case 
can be met by allowing for Aramaic sources behind the gospels and for the 
Aramaic background of their oral tradition, Misconception by Greek trans- 
lators of a Semitic phrase is indeed a wera causa in the interpretation, ¢.g., of 
some passages from Q, the common source of Mt. and Lk., which probably 
existed in different recensions. To quote a modern example, when we find 
in some translations of Don Quixote (part ii. ch. xxxiv.) the Greek Com- 
mentator, and in others the Greek Commander, it is obvious that these 
represent the wrong and the correct renderings of Z/ Commendador Griego. 
The synoptic variant renderings of a common Semitic original, it must be 
allowed, usually give a good sense; it may not be the exact sense of the 
original, but it is intelligible, and generally it is consonant with the character- 
istic aims and traits of the gospel in which it occurs. The latter phenomenon, 
indeed, prevents us from supposing that the particular rendering was invariably 
accidental. On the other hand, this theory, when pushed to its full limits, 
reduces the inventive and independent element in the synoptic writers, by lay- 
ing stress on the possibilities of error and alteration which were involved in 
the transition from a Hebrew original to various Greek translations. The 
synoptic variations are referred to different conceptions of Hebrew words and 
phrases rather than to the editorial freedom of writers, who omitted, added, 
and altered details in a source before them, for the sake of producing a 
special impression of Jesus as the Son of God or the fulfiller of ancient 
prophecy. ‘* We do not often find very early apocryphal evangelists, and 
never the canonical ones, deliberately inventing new traditions, It is 
generally possible to detect, even now, some basis of fact or ancient tradition 
for what appears at first sight to be a mere fiction; and it is a reasonable 
inference that if we had before us all the ‘ narratives’ of the ‘ many’ authors 
mentioned by Luke, and all the written interpretations of Matthew’s Logia 
handed down by those who, as Papias says, ‘interpreted them each to the 
best of his ability,’ we should find the paucity of invention almost equal to 
the magnitude of accretion” (Dzat. 552). This is much too strongly put. 
It is to press matters too far if we undervalue the inventiveness of the 
primitive tradition, and miss the varied motives which led to the production 
of edifying apologues within the evangelic tradition. We have no business 
to assume that a writer, who had (say) Mark or some other primitive written 
source before him, would not feel comparatively free to diverge from its exact 
‘erminology, to tell a story in his own way, or to reproduce a saying in the 


182 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


light of his own religious prepossessions. Furthermore, the ‘ telegram’ * 
theory—that the primitive gospel was written in an elliptic, condensed 
style, whose ambiguities and brevity explain the later gospels—fails often 
to render the primitive source intelligible. ‘‘The result of eliminating 
all words which are not common to all the evangelists is often to make 
the narrative unintelligible without the help of one of the existing Gospels 
to throw light on it” (Salmon, 7146 Human Element in the Gospels, 
Ρ- 15). 

(4) The latter theory is not incompatible with the recognition of Mark as 
prior to the other two synoptists; as a matter of fact, one of the most 
searching and minute statements of the evidence for Mark’s priority is in Dr. 
Abbott’s Diat. 314-330 (with table, 542-544, of corrections made by Mt. and 
Lk. on Greek text of Mk.—the latter being regarded as a Greek version, 
‘with a good many errors, conflations, and additions,’ of the Hebrew 
Ur-Evangelium). Even Pfleiderer (Ure. ii. 284 f. 392 f.), who adheres to a 
primitive Aramaic gospel-source, admits that it was first used by Mark among 
many others (Lk 11), then by Luke who also used Mk. ; as Mk. and Lk. 
represented the Gentile Christian church, while the original gospel continued 
to be used independently (with legendary expansions) by the Palestinian and 
Syrian churches,t Mt. was written to fuse together both the Gentile and 
Jewish Christian traditions. One of the weakest points in this theory is the 
necessity of supposing that all the discourse and narrative material common 
to Lk. and Mt. lay originally in Mark’s basis, the Aramaic gospel, from which 
it was derived by these writers through the medium of a Greek translation. 
A recent modification of this view,t by Scott-Moncrieff, similarly postulates 
a Foundation-document used by all three evangelists, but assumes it must have 
been written by Mark; Mt. and Lk. used not Mk. but this earlier draft 
(practically = an Ur-Marcus); Mk. ‘in the more literary atmosphere’ of 
Rome revised his original MS (based on Petrine reminiscences) and published 
it for the benefit of the Roman church. 

It is the extravagant claims occasionally made on behalf of Mk. as a 
Petrine gospel and as free from secondary elements, which have led to a 
double reaction not only against the Petrine tradition (see below under 
‘ Mark’) but against Mark’s priority to Matthew (so especially Hilgenfeld, 
Badham, Belser, and Merx, after Hug, Keim, and many others). The latter 
theory is inadequate, even with the ingenious modifications proposed by Zahn 
(INT. §§ 54-56), who, following the lead of Grotius and Michaelis, places the 
original (Hebrew) Matthew prior to Mark, and the canonical Greek Matthew 


* Cp. Abbott and Rushbrooke, Zhe Common Tradition of the Synoptic 
Gospels (1884), p. xi: ‘It is possible that for some time the Evangelistic 
records were handed down not in writing, but by means of oral tradition, 
like the Mishna of the Jews.” 

+ Hence the origin of the apocryphal gospels, especially the gospel καθ᾽ 
‘Efpalous, which was a collateral branch from the parent stem of the original 
Aramaic gospel. 

+ B. Bonkamp (Zur Evangelien-Frage, 1909, 53{.), on the other hand, 
agrees with those who make Mk. a compilation, and Mt, and Lk. dependent 
on the Aramaic Ur-evangelium. 


THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 183 


(as a translation of the Ur-Matthzeus) subsequent to Mark; Mark, in short, 
used the Hebrew Matthew and was in turn used by the Greek Matthew. 


The documentary hypothesis (cp. HWVZ. 615f.) goes back 
not only to the habits of Oriental historiography, which 
permitted a writer to incorporate a source Uiferatim or to alter 
it for his special purpose, instead of rewriting it, but to ancient 
praxis in general. ‘‘ Critical investigation into the sources of the 
ancient historians has shown beyond a question that, when they 
were dealing with times not within their own memory, they 
handled their authorities according to methods very different 
from those pursued in modern times. Not only materials, but 
the form in which these materials were worked up, were taken 
from predecessors usually without acknowledgment, and clearly 
without fear of any charge of plagiarism” (Hardy, Plutarch’s 
Galba and Otho, 1899, p. xliv). This was all the more feasible 
in the case of a book like Mark, which was not written with any 
literary object. It was the common property of Christians, and 
neither Matthew nor Luke had any scruple in adapting it at a 
later period.* In the abstruse problem of the synoptic embry- 
ology, the Ur-Marcus and Q represent the work of artisans, who 
compiled and wrote the raw materials, which the artists, 2.6. the 
authors of the canonical gospels, afterwards worked up into 
shape. t 

The documentary hypothesis is further corroborated by the 
methods of Tatian in compiling his Diatessaron during the last 
quarter of the second century. An examination} of the 
structure of this harmony, which was based on the four 


* The fusion of Mk. with Q and other sources is shown by the presence 
of the doublets (cp. AS. 80-107). These do not invariably denote different 
sources (cp. Badham’s Formation of Gospels*, 12f.); still in the main they 
point, not to different occasions on which Jesus uttered the same kind of 
word, but to variant traditions of the same saying or deed. 

+ A very suggestive analogy to the processes of idealisation, treatment of 
the miraculous, and influence of later church tendencies upon the tradition, 
has been outlined by Gardner (Zxplor. Evangelica, 174f.) and R. B. 
Drummond (7 2675 of Soctety of Historical Theology, Oxford, 1907, 37 f.) in 
the Franciscan literature. 

t See A. A. Hobson’s scholarly essay, The Diatessaron of Tatian and the 
Synoptic Problem (Chicago, 1904), which carefully investigates the evidence 
aiforded by Tatian’s methods for the documentary theory of the synoptic 
gospels and their origin. The relation of such methods to the documentary 
analysis of the Pentateuch is discussed by ἃ. F. Moore in 782. ix, 201-215, 
and Lofthouse (£7. xiii. 565 f.). 


184 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


canonical gospels, reveals the practice not only of freely 
altering, for purposes of edification and greater clearness as 
well as for the sake of literary effect, the order of words, 
sentences, and entire paragraphs, but also of arranging and 
fusing materials drawn from different sections in order ta 
present a continuous and full account. All this is consonant 
with a certain scrupulous fidelity on the part of Tatian. His 
work shows, ¢.g., a comparative absence of rewritten or omitted 
paragraphs. The bearing of his methods of composition on 
those of the synoptic evangelists lies in the twofold direction of 
showing (a) how earlier Christian sources could be dealt with in 
a fairly free fashion by later writers, without any lack of reverence ; 
and (4) how alterations by a later author do not require in all 
cases a special tendency, but merely literary habits, in order to 
account for their origin and extent. The former consideration 
is important. If Tatian, writing after the idea of the canon had 
taken shape, could compose a Diatessaron with some freedom 
from the four gospels, it is highly probable that the writers of 
these gospels, prior to the formation of the canon, would exercise 
not less liberty in their treatment of available sources, ‘‘ which 
they nevertheless regarded as historically trustworthy, and whose 
historical testimony they endeavoured substantially to preserve” 
(Hobson, p. 80). The second (4) inference supports what has 
been already said upon the need of eschewing an ultra-docu- 
mentary bias in the study of the synoptic problem. One of the 
obstacles raised by the documentary hypothesis has been the 
inadequate place assigned by many of its upholders to the place 
and function of oral tradition as an element in the process ; and 
it will help to render that hypothesis more tenable and attractive, 
if it is shown to include such a reason for variation as literary 
habit or individual idiosyncrasy. In a semi-literary work like 
one of the early Christian gospels, it is artificial to imagine that 
the author had some conscious ulterior purpose in every change 
he made. Although tendencies may be visible over the broad 
surface of his work, and although the general purpose of his 
composition may be plain, this does not exclude a certain 
freedom of literary choice, an artlessness, and the play of 
‘individual fancy and taste. No theory which fails to allow for 
such an element is true to the facts of the case. On the 
principles alike of literary criticism and of common sense, this 
consideration vindicates itself as a reasonable criterion in the 


PAPIAS 185 


examination and explanation of the synoptic variations, and it 
is amply borne out by a consideration of the phenomena 
presented by the Diatessaron. The latter shows a series of 
changes which are not due to any rigid or specific purpose. 
It reflects, as the synoptic variations in Matthew and Like 
must in all fairness be held to reflect, a much wider variety of 
motives underneath such alterations than is yielded by any 
theory which would determine a writer’s movements simply by 
some earlier sources and some controlling tendency of his own 
mind or circle. Consequently, we may argue, the failure to 
account for every single variation in the synoptic gospels does 
not discredit the documentary hypothesis, except when the latter 
is stated in some ultra-academic form. 

The earliest traditions extant upon the origin of the gospels, 
#.¢. the fragmentary remarks of John the presbyter quoted from 
Papias by Eusebius, show that no stereotyped official gospel was 
known to the memory of the sub-apostolic age. The first shapes 
which loom out in the mist are two documents roughly corre- 
sponding to the gospels of Mark and Matthew. What is their 
nature, and what is their relation to the documentary hypothesis ἢ 

§ 2. Zhe Papias-traditions.—The earliest clue furnished by 
tradition is the evidence of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in 
Phrygia during the first half of the second century. The two 
quotations from his “‘ Expositions of the Lord’s Aéyia,” in five 
συγγράμματα (Eus. 477. Z. ili. 39. 15-17), are very brief, and we 
have no clue to their context. Even the date of this Exposition 
is uncertain. As Papias was an ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ to Irenzus, and as, 
on the other hand, he looked back to his connection with the 
oral tradition of the presbyters as an old episode when he 
composed his book, the date of that volume cannot be put 
much earlier than ὦ A.D. 120. If the De Boor fragment (7'U. 
v. 2. p. 170), which makes him mention people who, after being 
raised from the dead by Jesus, lived till the age of Hadrian, 
is really a quotation, the date would have to be carried 
down at least another decade; but it is not a quotation,* 
and the ¢erminus ad quem for this writing’s composition is not 
later than ὦ. A.D. 160. It may be dated in 140(5)-160 


* Philip Sidetes, who preserves the quotation, was excerpting from Euse- 
bius at this point, and the likelihood is that he made a mistake in attributing 
to Papias a similar remark of Quadratus which the historian happens te 
narrate (12. £. iv. 3. 2). 


186 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 

(Harnack), 140-150 (Westcott), 130-140 (Lightfoot), or ¢ 125 
(Zahn). As he got his information from John the presbyter, 
when he was gathering materials for the book, the date of the 
latter authority is carried back to the opening of the second 
century. 


For discussions of Papias, his date, authorities, and writings, cp. especially 
Zahn (SX., 1866, 649-696, 1867, 539-542, Acta Joannis, pp. cliv-clxxii, 
GK. i. 2. 849f., ii. 2. 780f.); Weiffenbach, Dze Papiasfragmemie (1878) ; 
Lipsius (/P7., 1885, 174 f.) ; Holtzmann (Z/V7., 1880, 64-77); Hilgenfeld 
(ZWT., 1875, 231-270, 1886, 257-291); with SR. (pp. 277 f.) and Light- 
foot’s invaluable articles (Cont. Review, 1867, 1875); Salmon (DCA. iv. 
185-190) ; Westcott (Caxon of NT.® pp. 69f.); Link (SK., 1896, 435f.); 
Harnack (ACL. ii. 1. pp. 335 f., 356f.); Abbott (222. ii. 1809 f.); 
Goetz on ‘‘ Papias u. seine Quellen,” in Sztzungsberichte d. philos.-histor. 
Klasse d. Konigl. bayr. Akademie d. Wass. (1903) 267-320; Schwartz 
(Ueber den Tod der Sohne Zebedaet, Berlin, 1904, pp. 18f.), and Ehrhard 
(462. τ12 .). 


“Τὸ the bearing of Papias upon the problem of the apostle 
John’s residence in Asia Minor and the origin of the Fourth 
gospel, it will be necessary to return later on. Meantime, we 
must look at his evidence upon the synoptic gospels of Mark 
and Matthew, or, at any rate, upon what Papias believed to be 
the origin of these canonical scriptures. 
This also the presbyter 


καὶ τοῦθ᾽ ὁ πρεσβύτερος 


ἔλεγεν: 

Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γεν- 
ὀμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς 
ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ 
Χριστοὺ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. 
οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ Kuplov, οὔτε 
παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δέ, ὡς 
ἔφην, Πέτρῳ' ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας 
ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ 
ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιού- 
μενος λόγιων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν 
Μάρκος, οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνη- 
μόνευσεν. ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, 


said: 

‘Mark, who was* Peter’s inter- 
preter,t wrote down accurately, 
though not in order,t all that he 
recollected of what Christ had said or 
done.§ For he was not a hearer of 
the Lord, nor a follower of his; he 
followed Peter, as I have said, at a 
later date,|| and Peter adapted his 
instructions to practical needs, without 
any attempt to give the Lord’s words 
systematically. So that Mark was 
not wrong in writing down some 


* “had been” would give the sense more accurately. 
+ =yo2nD (cp. Schlatter in BY7., 1899, iii. pp. 51 f.)? 


+ On this phrase, see below. 


§ The quotation from the presbyter may end here, the rest (as 7 have saad) 
being Papias’ reproduction of the primitive tradition. 
i Not, after having followed Paul, but after the lifetime of Jesus, 


PAPIAS 187 


τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ | things in this way from memory, for 
ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς. his one concern was neither to omit 

Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ ΠΙαπίᾳ | nor to falsify anything he had heard.’ 
περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου. περὶ dé τοῦ Mar@alov| Such is Papias’ account of Mark ; 
ταῦτ᾽ εἴρηται" Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν EBpa- | this is what he says about Matthew: 
δι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνεγράψατο," | ‘Sothen Matthew composed the Logia 
ἡρμήνευσεν δ᾽ αὐτὰ ὡς hv dSuvards|in the Hebrew language, and every 
ἕκαστος. one interpreted them as he was able.’ 


As these traditions are preserved by Papias from the 
presbyter John, and as they go back not only to a period 
previous to the final composition of the Zxfosition, but apparently 
to the time when Papias was merely collecting oral testimony, 
the problem of the date of the book from which they are now 
cited becomes comparatively insignificant. These explanations 
of Mark and Matthew must have been in circulation by the 
end of the first century. The beginning of the second century 
is the latest period at which we can assume they came to Papias. 
Furthermore, they are not inventions of his own. Their 
authority is the presbyter John, who was in close contact with 
the cycles of primitive apostolic tradition, and there is no reason 
to suppose that these two particular traditions suffered accretion 
or corruption in passing through the channel of Papias’? memory. 
Doubtless they were exposed to the atmosphere of sub-apostolic 
desire to connect all canonical writings, directly or indirectly, 
with some apostolic authority, but the atmosphere did not create 
them. Their motive is unambiguous. By the time that Papias 
wrote, if not much earlier, difficulties were evidently felt about 
the differences in the four gospels, which implies that they had 
begun to be read together or, at any rate, laid side by side. 
The divergence, ¢.g., between Mark’s τάξις and that of the Fourth 
gospel seems to have occasioned surprise. Papias writes in an 
explanatory tone. He quotes the presbyter in order to defend 
Mark against a certain depreciation, and his defence pre- 
supposes that the authority of the Fourth gospel was so strong 
in Certain local circles that it served as a standard for estimating 
the style and shape of earlier. 

A further point urged by Papias in these quotations from the 
presbyter is the difference of language.t Both the Petrine oral 


* συνετάξατο, the variant reading (preferred by Schwartz), does not alter 
the sense materially, though cuveypayaro brings out more clearly the fact that 
it was a writing. 

t+ There is also an implicit side-reference to the gnostic circle of Basilides, 


188 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


teaching and the Matthzean book of the Logia were in Aramaic , 
but while Mark’s gospel! fixed the former in Greek shape, the latter 
was for some time circulated without any such definitive editing. 
It is implied that this phase of things was past by the time not 
only of Papias but of his informant, and that the need of such 
independent off-hand translations no longer existed. Why, we 
can only conjecture, for no further information from Papias is 
extant. But the obvious answer is that some definitive recension 
of the Matthzan Logia had superseded the numerous earlier 
translations. 


The translating or interpreting to which Papias alludes cannot be ex- 
plained (so Schlatter and Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, 27 f.) as 
part of the worship of the churches. In the Jewish synagogues the lesson from 
the Hebrew scriptures, read by the rabbi, was followed by the interpretation 
or rendering of it into the popular tongue; but the latter task fell to a 
‘meturgeman,’ or interpreter. Even though the rabbi knew both languages, 
he confined himself to one, 7.6. to the older and more sacred speech. But 
the use of the Matthzan Logia to which Papias alludes was not restricted 
to Christian worship (cp. GYD. i. 55 f.). He is thinking, as the context 
shows, about writings, and the presbyter’s words denote also independent, 
probably paraphrastic versions of the Logia made for catechetical and 
missionary purposes. It is improbable, therefore, although plausible, to hold 
that ἑρμηνευτής as applied to Mark and ἡρμήνευσεν as applied to the early 
Christian teachers or missionaries who used the Matthzan writing, denote 
the same sort of work, except that in the one case the translating or in- 
terpreting followed the oral Aramaic teaching of Peter, with its reminiscences 
of the Lord’s words and deeds, while in the other the basis of the interpre- 
tation lay in Matthew’s written Aramaic record. When the informant of 
Papias reports that ‘‘ every one translated (or interpreted) the Logia as best 
he could,” the reference must include various Greek versions (Resch, 
Agrapha, pp. 54f.); 1 cannot mean simply the worship and work of the 
early Christian mission, where at first any one who used the Matthzan 
collection had to give a Greek equivalent upon his own responsibility and 
from his own resources. 

Two minor points of some importance remain. (a) One is the meaning 
of οὐ μέντοι τάξει. In the light of the well-known passage from Lucian (de 
hist. conscrib. 16 f.), τάξις seems here to imply not order or consecutiveness 
in the modern sense of the term, so much as the artictic arrangement and 
effective presentation of the materials. The latter, in their unadorned and 
artless sequence, are drouvjuara. Set ἐν τάξει they are orderly, harmonious. 
The criticism passed by Papias on Mark refers to the style, then, rather 


who claimed that the διδάσκαλος of the latter was Glaukias, the interpreter of 
Peter (Clem. Strom. 7. 106). Papias points out that the true Petrine tradition 
was conveyed by Mark, and that, instead of being a secret kabbala, it was 
published in a gospel (cp. Schwartz, 11, 20 f.), 


PAPIAS 189 


than to the chronological sequence.* What Mark wrote down was the 
ἀπομνημονεύματα or recollections: of Peter, which were simply delivered πρὸς 
τὰς χρείας, and the literary result was not a ἱστορία. It had not τάξις enough 
for that. A simple record, as exact and complete as possible, was what came 
from Mark’s pen, just such notes as might be described under Justin’s title of 
apostolic ἀπομνημονεύματα. When τάξις is translated ‘ order,’ therefore, tie 
reference is to ‘orderliness’ rather than to historical sequence. ‘* Ce que l’on 
entend par ‘ordre’ n’est pas la chronologie . . . c’est la bonne distribution des 
matiéres ” (Loisy, i. 26). (ὁ) Does the phrase τὰ λόγια mean the works and 
werds of Jesus, a practical equivalent for τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ? Or does it mean 
primarily. utterances? The former view has been strongly supported,t 
particularly by those who desired to identify these Aramaic logia as closely 
as possible with the contents of the canonical Greek Matthew, but the 
context, together with the historical probabilities, indicates that the phrase 
here means effaéa, utterances or discourses or commands of the Lord. These 
sayings, of course, must have included often a piece of narrative. Many of 
the Lord’s most striking words were associated with some event or incident. 
When they were plucked from the soil of the ἄγραφος μνήμη in the primitive 
tradition, they would come up with some historical details of time and place 
clinging to them, like earth to the roots of a plant. The frequent exchange 
of question and answer in the extant conversations of Jesus necessitates some 
context of circumstances,¢ and Matthew’s gospel more than once appears to 
record an incident for the purpose of a saying which it sustained. Further- 
more, in his own book, the ᾿Εξήγησις λογίων κυριακῶν, we know that Papias 
included some stories and narratives of the life of Jesus, for the purposes of 
his exposition. On the other hand, the differentiation of τὰ λόγια τοῦ Κυρίου 
and τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ in Polyk. 2411. 7, tells against the identification 
of Matthew’s τὰ λόγια in Papias with any work similar to Mark or even 
Matthew. Papias is certainly lax in his use of the term, for, in the Marcan 
notice, he seems to describe indifferently the substance of Mark as τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα and as κυριακοὶ λόγοι or κυριακὰ λόγια. 
But the analogy of the OT prophets, where ‘he words of Jeremiah, Hosea, 
etc., include narrative as well as sayings and speeches, bears out the view that 
while the Matthzean Logia of Papias were not a gospel-narrative, they were 
not a mere collection of sayings. 


A fair exegesis of the Papias-traditions forbids us then to 
infer that any sharp distinction was drawn between the contents 
of the Marcan gospel and the writing of Matthew. The latter 
could not have been confined to sayings, any more than could 
the former, or any similar narrative of Jesus, to incidents and 
deeds. The distinction intended by Papias (if not by his 
informant) was drawn elsewhere. Mark’s gospel was evidently 


* So, after Norden, Corssen (GGA., 1899, pp. 317 f.). 

+ From Liicke, Baur, and Keim, to Hilgenfeld, Zahn, and Belser, 

+ Thus Eusebius (4. Z. iii. 245) observes tnat Matthew and John alone 
have left us τῶν τοῦ κυρίου διατριβῶν ὑπομνήματα. 


190 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


telt by many to be incomplete, as compared with Matthew, 
besides being disorderly, as compared with John. The presbyter 
explains the reason of the former defect. The exigencies of 
its composition prevented Mark’s gospel from giving a συντάξις 
of the Lord’s utterances; Mark was not able to provide this. 
But it was furnished by Matthew, a hearer and follower of the 
Lord. He composed or compiled τὰ λόγια, and his account, it 15 
implied, was adequate, so far as contents went. This distinc- 
tion, together with that of the language, may be regarded as 
uppermost in the Papias-traditions. 

While the harvest from Papias is thus scanty, it is not unim- 
portant. We learn that there had been an Aramaic gospel- 
writing by Matthew, which Papias at any rate connected some- 
how with the canonical Matthew. How far he believed the 
latter to represent a version of it, we have no information. 
On Mark, again, the testimony is ampler. It is uncertain what 
was, or what Papias believed to be, the relation between the 
canonical gospel of Mark and this Petrine record of Mark, 
but the latter was not composed, apparently, until Mark had 
ceased to be Peter’s ἑρμηνευτής, whether owing to some change 
of circumstances or to Peter’s death. The latter view is that 
of Irenzus (af. Euseb. 27. Z. v. 8. 3), who puts the composi- 
tion of Mark’s gospel subsequent to the decease of Peter, but 
the mist which shrouds the later history of the apostle prevents 
us from checking the truth of this remark, and another tradition, 
vouched for in two different ways by Clement of Alexandria 
(7. £. ii. 15. 2, and vi. 14. 6), asserts that Mark wrote when 
Peter was still alive.* The unanimous tradition of the second 
and third centuries upon the connection of Mark, as the author 
of the gospel, with Peter (cp. Swete, pp. xviii f.), probably is 
little more than a prolonged echo of the Papias-tradition, com- 
bined with inferences, more or less fictitious, from 1 P 518, 
These later testimonies add little or nothing of independent 
historical value to the tradition which has just been discussed, 
and the latter must now be set side by side with the canonical 
gospel. It is only after an examination of Mark as we have it, 
that it is possible to ascertain how far the notice preserved by 
Papias is an adequate and trustworthy piece of criticism. And 

* This is evidently the product of later reflection in the church, stimu- 


lated by a desire to claim spiritual authority and a Petrine guarantee ‘or 
Mark’s narrative (cp. Schwartz, pp. 18 f.). 


THE UR-MARCUS 191 


the same holds true of Matthew. The results upon which the 
tullowing sections converge may be outlined at this point, for the 
sake of convenience. The two writings mentioned by John the 
presbyter lie at the back of Mk. and Mt. respectively; they 
correspond to the Ur-Marcus and the Q source,* which the 
internal criticism of these gospels has succeeded in feeling if not in 
laying bare underneath the strata of the canonical texts. There 
are insuperable difficulties in the way either of rejecting ¢ the 
Papias-tradition or of identifying the two writings of this frag- 
ment with the canonical Mark and Matthew, and the solution is 
to suppose that the former represents a later edition ¢ of the 
original Mark (which resembled a κήρυγμα Πέτρου), while the 
latter represents the work of a Jewish Christian writer, with 
catholic interests, who employed in his work not only Mk. but 
the Mattheean Logia. Luke’s gospel, like Matthew’s, draws upon 
(possibly a different text of) the Ur-Marcus and upon Q or the 
logia-source (probably in a different translation); but, unlike 
Matthew’s, it embodies subsidiary sources, one of which at least 
ranked of such importance that the author more than once 
preferred it even to Mk. and Q. 

§ 3. Mark and the Ur-Marcus.—The relation of Mark to 
Peter is described in the opening words of the Muratorian frag- 
ment on the Canon, guwibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit. If guribus 
is taken to have been originally a/vguibus (7.6. certain incidents or 
episodes in the life of Jesus), the author would mean that although 
Mark was not an eye-witness of the life of Jesus, still he was 
present at one or two occasions in it (e.g. Mk 145 ?). But gazdus 
probably referred to a preceding co/loguits Petri, and the sense 

* The common discourse-material is best explained as due to the use of 
some such source A similar literary problem arises in connection with 
Plutarch’s and Tacitus’ accounts of Galba. Here, too, the hypothesis of 
absolute independence is precluded by the close agreements, and the alterna- 
tives are to suppose that Plutarch used Tacitus, or to conjecture that both had 
access to some common authority such as the elder Pliny’s H¢storzes or 
Cluvius Rufus. 

+ On the ground that it might be no more than an inference from 1 P 51" 18, 
an ill-informed guess which Papias or his informant made (cp. e.g. Loofs, 
Die Auferstehungsberichte, pp. 22 f.). 

1 ‘‘ Eine vermehrte Ausgabe, in welcher der iiberlieferte Text mdglichst 
respektiert werden sollte” (Wendling, Evtstehung des Marcus-Eveliums, 


Ρ. 2. ‘‘Il yaeuun Préto-Marc dont en résumé notre second évangile est 
comme une réédition quelque peu retouchée” (Réville, Jésus de Nazareth, 


', 477). 


192 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


of the incomplete conclusion to the sentence is that Mark set 
down what he had heard from Peter. This tallies with the 
earlier evidence of John the presbyter, as reported by Papias, 
whether it is a mere echo or an independent corroboration. 
Now the canonical Mark, after an analysis of its literary 
structure, shows distinct traces of editorial work upon a source 
(see below under ‘ Mark’); it is not the naive transcript or 
precipitate of oral tradition, but arranged upon a definite, 
chronological plan, with a definite aim. Upon the other hand, 
the materials which form its basis show a distinctly Palestinian 
and even Petrine colour. ‘Dass der dlteste Evangelist nicht 
der erste Aufzeichner ist, sondern bereits Sammler und Redaktor ; 
dass er nicht mehr bloss aus der freifliessenden miindlichen 
Ueberlieferung schopft, sondern bereits festgeformte Massen 
gruppiert und mit seinem Missionarsgeist durchdringt, das ist 
ein Ergebnis, das nicht mehr verloren gehen kann” (J. Weiss, 
TR., 1908, 133). It is a fair hypothesis, therefore, to identify 
not the canonical Mk. but the rougher notes of the Ur-Marcus 
with the source to which the Papias-tradition refers (so, eg., 
Schleiermacher, Renan, Scholten, 5. Davidson, Wendt, von 
Soden).* The fact that the canonical gospel was based on this 
Marcan work was responsible for Mark’s name being attached 
to it. 

Several critics (so, e.g. Weisse, Schenkel, Réville) have argued 
that the Ur-Marcus must have been (a) larger than the present 
Mk., since Mt. and Lk. repeatedly agree in matter which Mk., 
telling the same story, omits. Unless, as is improbable, Lk. 
used Mt. or vice versa, or unless the coincidences be due to the 
harmonising tendencies of copyists, these common additions of 
Mt. and Lk., so far as they are not trivial, would seem to show 
that both had access to a form of Mk. fuller than the canonical. 
But other explanations of this phenomenon are not only possible 
but more probable, and the theory involves the great difficulty of 
supposing that Mk. deliberately omitted a good deal of available 
material, It is much more likely that the Ur-Marcus was (δ) 
smaller than the present Mk. (so, ¢g., P. Ewald, Reuss, J. Weiss, 
von Soden, Wendling), especially when the Papias-tradition of 


*The Ur-Marcus theory, with or without a reference to the Papias- 
tradition, has been held by Credner, Reuss, Késtlin, A. Réville, Schmiedel, 
J. Weiss, and Loisy. It is ably controverted in Burkitt’s Gospel Atstory and 
lis Transmission (1906), 40f. 


THE UR-MARCUS 193 


the former is accepted. As for the further question, whethe1 
Mt. and Lk. used the shorter Ur-Marcus or the canonical Mk. 
(in substantially its present form), the evidence tells strongly in 
favour of the latter view (so, e.g. Wernle, Wellhausen, Jiilicher, 
Burkitt, Loisy). Their omissions can be partly accounted for 
by tendency, and in part they do not need to be accounted for 
at all. In several instances * it can be shown that they knew 
parts of Mk. which they omitted (cp. Badham’s proof for Luke 
in £7, vii. 457-459). 


This fact, that both Matthew and Luke t omit a certain amount of 
material in Mk. which, ex hypothest, lay before them, opens up the two 
alternatives, viz. (a) that the omissions were deliberate, or (ὁ) that such 
sections, though extant in our canonical Mk., were not added to Mk. until 
after its use by the later synoptists. On the latter hypothesis, the amount 
of matter in Mk. which is absent from Mt. and Lk. must have been added 
to Mk. after Mt. and Lk. had used it; or, at any rate, they must have em- 
ployed a copy of the Marcan source different from that which formed the 
nucleus of the canonical Mk. In other words, where Mt. and Lk. agree in 
omitting a Marcan passage or, more generally, as against Mk., the latter is 
presumed not to have lain before them, unless adequate reason can be given 
for such omissions. But is a literary criterion of this kind absolutely valid? 
Surely, some obvious caveats at once occur to the mind. For one thing, it is 
an extremely delicate and hazardous task for a modern, Western mind to 
determine the precise motives which may have induced a later synoptic 
writer to omit or abbreviate a source which lay before him. Even although 
the omission of passages like Mk 476-29 782-87 g22-26 1111. 36 1282-84 1 383-97 
and 145% may be difficult to explain, it would be hasty to conclude that 
such passages did not lie before Mt. and Luke. The desire to be as full as 
possible may be granted ; it is natural to suppose that neither would wish to 
leave out anything of vital importance. But, after all, a writer must be 
allowed some freedom. It is not to be taken for granted that a later writer 
of the gospel story would incorporate whatever lay before him in an earlier 
source, even if these materials were consonant with his special purpose ; 
such a canon of criticism, which is tacitly assumed in many quarters, requires 
to be seriously revised and qualified. Completeness would as a rule be an 
end and object with the writer of any gospel. His work was to circulate by 
itself ; he could rarely if ever presuppose, in his audience, acquaintance with 
other evangelic writings which might supplement gaps in his own; indeed, 


* One of the clearest is in Luke’s change (17°) of the logion preserved 
in Mt 17>, Luke has nothing corresponding to Mk 1112. 18. 19-278, but, 
as this reminiscence proves, he knew the incident of the cursing of the 
fig-tree. 

+ Furthermore, John occasionally sides in such circumstances with Mk., 
as he sides again (Dzat. 1806 f.) with Mk. and Mt. against Luke’s deviations 
or omissions (Drat. 1282 ἔ,, 1309 f., 1344, 1373, 1730 f.). 


13 


194 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


in the case of Luke, we have a historian whose aim was to supersede many 
inferior and defective records in circulation throughout the churches, But 
completeness of this kind is always relative to the writer’s special aim, and 
even apart from the range of that aim his individual taste would be sure to 
operate—to say nothing of considerations of space and symmetry. Such im- 
plications tell against the view that Mt. and Lk. must have used a shorter 
form of Mark. They may also be held to disprove the view that Mark did 
not use Q, but this conclusion rests upon independent grounds (cp. § 5). 


§ 4. Matthew's gospel and Q (=Matthaean Logia).—The 
style and contents of Matthew show that it is neither the 
translation of an Aramaic source nor composed by an apostle. 
For these and other reasons it is impossible to identify it 
with a translation of the Logia-source mentioned by Papias. 
But the large amount of discourse-material which Mt. has 
incorporated with Mk. permits the identification of this special 
source with the Matthzan Logia of Papias (so from Schleier- 
macher to McGiffert, Burton, Allen, Peake, and Stanton).* 
This explains, more satisfactorily than any other theory, the 
traditional authorship of the gospel. Matthew’s gospel (εὐαγγέλιον 
κατὰ Ματθαῖον) was so called, not because it was the first to 
make use of the Matthzan source, but because it embodied 
this σύνταξις τῶν λόγιων with special thoroughness. The most 
notable feature in its composition was the use made of this 
source. Matthew was too obscure an apostle to be associated 
by later tradition with a gospel, unless there was good ground 
for it; and, as he cannot have written the canonical gospel, the 
natural inference is that he was responsible for the primary 
logia-source which characterised it. 

This is more satisfactory than to identify the Logia of Matthew, to which 
Papias alludes, with a florilegium of messianic proof-texts made in Hebrew 
by Matthew the tax-gatherer (Hart, Zxf.7, July 1906, 78f.; Burkitt, 7rans- 
mission, 126f.; K. Lake, Review of Biol. and Phil. iii. 483 f.). A collection 
of such /es¢imonta would not be important enough either to justify the tradition 
or to lend Matthew’s name to a gospel which employed them, apart altogether 
from the fact that a midrashic anecdote like Mt 2 188 could hardly have 
formed part of a source emanating from an apostolic eye-witness, and that τὰ 
λόγια could not denote OT extracts fer se (cp. Stanton, GAD. ii. 48). 

On the other side, a comparison of Mt. and Lk. shows the 
common use of a discourse-source, Q. The problem is to 


* Harnack (BN7. ii. 248 f.) only admits ‘fa strong balance of probability 
that Q is the work of Matthew.” ‘‘ From the so-called charge to the 
apostles we can only conclude that behind the written record there stands the 
memory of an apostolic listener.” 


THE Q SOURCE 195 


connect Q with the Matthzan Logia, and this may be solved 
by identifying the latter with the substantial nucleus of the 
former. For all practical purposes, they may be considered one 
and the same source. If so, this has an important bearing upon 
the determination of Q as reproduced in Mt. and in Lk. (a) 
The general opinion is that the latter’s setting of the Logia is in 
many, perhaps in most, cases superior to Mt.’s. This may well 
be, from the historical point of view, but Lk.’s arrangement of 
them (e.g. of the Lord’s Prayer) need not represent a close 
reproduction of them as they lay in Q. It is argued that Mt. is 
more likely to have massed the sayings together than Lk. to have 
broken them up, but, in view of Lk.’s dramatic (as distinguished 
from historic) framework, this argument is not convincing It 
is a good working hypothesis that the grouping of the Logia in Q, 
as distinguished from their spirit (which Lk., for all his greater 
Stylistic changes, has kept upon the whole more closely), is 
preserved substantially in Mt. Where Lk. differs from the 
latter in his arrangement of the Logia, and where that arrange- 
ment is historically valid (which is not the case, ¢.g., with 133485), 
is due to the fact that he found the basis for his re-setting in 
some other source,* or possibly now and then in oral tradition. 
Elsewhere, the Lucan mise en scéne is due to the writer’s 
imagination. (4) The Q source must also have been more 
Jewish Christian in character than Lk.’s gospel would suggest. 
Mt. retained, ¢.g., the ‘particularistic’ logia for archaic reasons; 
he was more conservative in the use of his source than Luke. 
Where the latter either omitted or modified, Mt. was content to 
preserve, adding broader logia of his own. 


The verbal coincidences of Mt. and Lk. do not necessarily imply that they 
used the same Greek version of the Matthzan Logia. Translations of such 
sayings would inevitably have a great deal in common ; the scope for variations 
is necessarily restricted ; and the literary identities of Mt. and Lk. in their 
common parts are explicable without either the hypothesis that the latter used 
the former, or even that both had the same Greek recension of Q before them. 
Occasional variations of rendering (cp. Wellhausen, £27/. 36f.)+ corroborate 
the view that they used different versions of the original Aramaic; e.g. 
Mt 5!)*2=Lk 67-8 (where, in the latter verse, the Matthzean τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν 


* This implies that some of Q’s logia were in circulation in other forms— 
a view which is decidedly to be upheld (cp. pp. 205 f.). 

+ It does not meet the full data of these passages to argue (Harnack, Loisy : 
RAR., 1907, 441f.) that the changes are due to the free development of the 
writer’s thought as exhibited in the context. 


196 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


and the Lucan ol πατέρες αὐτῶν go back to the Aramaic variants dag’ damathén 
and dag’ damathén), Mt 5°=Lk 6% (where τέλειοι and οἰκτίρμονες are variants 
of oby), Mt 23%=Lk 11 (cp. Nestle, EZ. xv. 528; ZVW., 1906, 260-261), 
and Mt 23°°=Lk 114! (where Matthew’s καθάρισον and Luke’s δότε ἐλεημοσύ- 
νην go back to the Aramaic dakkau and zakkax). Sometimes both versions 
reproduce the same error (¢.g. πολλῶν for πολλῷ in Mt 10*'=Lk 127, cp. 
Wellhausen’s note) ; but this is the exception (cp. above, p. 181). 


At the same time, this recognition of a specifically Matthzan 
character in Q does not involve the abandonment (so, 6.9.» 
Burton, Allen) of the latter as a common source for Mt. and Lk. 
Lk. possibly knew it in a special recension;* but even this 
hypothesis is not necessary in order to explain the differences of 
setting and spirit in the corresponding Lucan Logia.. The first 
clue for the reconstruction of Q lies in the common materials 
of Mt. and Lk. But this implies that the latter, eg., could 
only have access to the Q-sayings in their Q-form, that both 
writers reproduced Q almost entirely, and that practically ¢ 
nothing which is only preserved in one or the other originally 
belonged to Q. None of these assumptions can be granted. 
Furthermore, the analogy of Mk. is a warning against over- 
precise reconstructions of this common source (cp. Robinson’s 
Study of Gospels, 91 f., and Burkitt in /ZS., 1907, 454f.). If Mk. 
had to be picked out of Mt. and Lk., on the same principles as 
Q, many of its most striking characteristics would be awanting, 
e.g. 1241-4, “In comparison with the real Mk. it would bea 
headless, armless torso.” ‘These considerations do not invalidate 
the attempt to fix approximately the outlines and general 
characteristics of Q,—especially when we accept the additional 
clue to its origin furnished by the Papias-tradition,—but they 
are a check upon detailed analyses which profess to regain the 
exact stylistic and religious characteristics of a source which 
neither writer may have preserved in its entirety and which both 
have worked over. 

If the formula (καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς κτλ.), which 
recurs five times in Mt. (γ38 111 1358 19! 261), was taken qyer 


* As distinct from a special translation. It is not probable that Mt.’s 
Jewish Christian idiosyncrasies were due to a similar recension of Q, which 
lay before him, though there is every likclihood that a work like Q would . 
pass through stages of accretion (cp. Pfleiderer, P4/., 1907, 117-139, and 
Schott’s analysis of Mt 10, in ZVIV., 1906, 140-150). 

+ Thus Harnack (BNWT. ii. 26f., 185) only admits the parable of the 
mustard-seed, which occurs in Mk. (4308 


THE Q SOURCE 197 


from Q, as is inherently likely (cp. A/S. 165), this is a fresh 
proof that the latter souree—so far as form goes—approximated 
to the successive masses of logia preserved in Mt., and also that 
they were connected by fragments of narrative. The fivefold 
division was not uncommon in Jewish and early Christian 
literature, and Q may have been compiled, like the exposition 
of Papias (Eus. #7. Z. iii. 39), in five parts. The following list of 
passages may be taken to represent approximately the Q-source, 
as it can be felt vibrating in Matthew: 

37-2 (baptism of John, εἰς. ; strictly speaking, introductory 
sayings about Jesus),* 43-™* (temptation), 537! 13-17. 20-24. 25-80. 
Bees ane) 7 te) 915-283) πραγ (Sermon), 6°73. (eentunion, Of 
Kapharnaum), 819-24 9185 ToS! 17-38 (42) Τ12-1ο. 20-30 χ,,ὅ-8. 11-18, 
425-45 y 314-15. 16-17. 24-29. 83-85. 80-48, 44-52 (group of parables), 151244. 
23-24 y 617-19 (1) 7719-20. (24-271) 1 Q9-5. 10, rag. 15-20. 23-95 96-12, 28 201-16 
214-17. 3rb.-3a. 28-3la 51-10, 11-14 231-89 (seven woes), 240). 10-12 26-27. 
37-41. 42-44. 45-51 9 1:90: (31-46 1) 5652-54, 

The passages in black type represent for the most part the 
material which is also used by Luke more or less closely (22 
and 25 containing scattered parallels); passages like 41316 and 
1216-21 came from a messianic florilegium. We have hardly any 
criteria for determining how far any pieces of Luke’s Sondergut 
should be added to this list, owing to the greater variety of 
sources upon which he drew. But, even as it stands, this 
outline of the Matthzean Logia is both coherent and distinctive. 
It is not a heterogeneous mass of logia, but a collection moulded 
by catechetical and homiletical processes, with sayings on the 
Kingdom grouped together for the purposes of edification and 
apologetic, strongly marked by eschatological traits, and shaped, 
more than once, by polemical interests. The outstanding features 
are the grouping of the sayings (which is not simply the work of 
Mt.’s editor) and the emphatically Jewish Christian cast of some 
sections. 


The variety and the consensus of opinion upon the contents of Q will be 
evident from a glance, first of all, at eight reconstructions + which aim at 
reproducing the outline as well as the contents of the source. 

(a) Albert Réville (Jésus de Nazareth, i. pp. 299, 469-470) groups the 

* Their presence in Q is due either to the connection of the baptism with 
the temptation, or to the need of explaining subsequent references to John. 

+ In the following analyses, the verbal minutiz have been generally 
omitted, for the sake of space and clearness, 


198 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


material ina sevenfold arrangement :* (i.) the new law Mt 53-777=Lk 6™% 
1133, 816 1434 1617, 1298-69 1618, 629-86 y 2-4, 7293-84 1 734-36 7.35.8] 1 G13 G7. AIL y γ8-18. 
63! 1324-27, 647-49 ; (ii.) apostolic instructions, Mt 997-38 195-16. 23-42 — 1 Ἰς 19% 4-12 3, 
64 817 725-9, 7251-08 7 426-37, 7.738 Το]. (iii.) in defence of the kingdom, Mt 117>- 
19. 21-24, 25b-80 1.2». 20. 28-80. 27. 89, 41-45 1} 724-28 1616 731-3) 10018-16. 21-22, 910 
648-45, 1 129-82. 4-26 > (1ν.} parables of the kingdom, Mt 1329 2:1 }κ 131% 31; (v.) 
members of the kingdom, Mt 1826" 201-16 2173-27 221-6. 8:-14--  Ἰκ y7l-2 poa-7, 
173-4 1416-24, (vi.) woes, Mt 237-99 =Lk 114+ 5% 42. 89. 44. 49-51, 7 934-35; (vii,) the 
coming of the kingdom, Mt 241!-22- 26-28. 87-51, 25 = Lk 1775. 87. 26-30, 7986-40, 7912-27, 
(6) Barnes (see below under ‘ Matthew’) further proposes to find in this 
source the actual document mentioned by Papias, “ἃ complete treatise on the 
teaching of Christ concerning the new kingdom. . . a manual of the new 
law for the use of the church at large,” but confines his investigations to 
the non-Marcan materials of Mt., and discovers the substance of the Lord’s 
teaching in five books: viz. (i.) the new law (Mt 5-7), (ii.) the rulers of the 
new kingdom (Mt 10), (iii.) parables of the new kingdom (Mt 13. 22), (iv.) 
relations between members of the kingdom (Mt 18), and (v.) the coming of 


the king (Mt 24-25). (c) Similarly Burton t finds the Matthzean Logia-source 
(not used by Lk.) in Mt 3/5 54+ 7-10. 1a 14, 16-17, 19-24, 97-28, 81. 38-290, 41-43 61-7 


0b, 13b. 15-18. $4 78. 120, 18-22 gl3a γρδ. δ. 8b. 2B. 2b, 86, 41 7128-80 799-7, 11-12α. 84 7.414. 
18. 24-80. 95-68 1. ς12-14. 29-24 7617-19 py M-2 Ba. 10, 14. 16-20. 28:84. 910-12, 28. 201-1δ 
114-16. 28-52. 43 291-14 22 8. δι Τ0-10, 15-22, 24, 28, 82 2410-12 Ba 2. ς1-118. 18, 14-46 3652-58, 
(d) Wernle (Syxopt. Frage, pp. 224f.) submits a detailed outline: (a) 
historical introduction Mt 3712=Lk 37% 16, Mt 4%!0=Lk 48:12... (4) rules for 
Christians and missionaries, Mt 5°“ 71-6 12!2-°7=Lk 670-49 1183 1258-59 1617, 
Mt 8 8=Lk 7220 13°30, Mt 819-22 g97-88 yo9-16. 23-25. 40-49 120-97 316-17 
Lk 9°7-62 101-16. 21-24; (6) sayings of a more polemical nature, Mt 11519-- 
EX 7 16%) Mt 12 =k rr τοῦ Mb γ285.55 Eee 
Mt 23'39=Lk 1159-52 1334-8; and (d) instructions for the Christian life, 
especially in view of the second advent, Mt 65:18 772=Lk 117° 818. Mt 619-4 
=Lk 12224 γγ84-86 1618, Mt 131-88, 44-46. 1 73182, Mt 10%-%9=Lk 123. 
1-53 426-27, Mt 18% 1229=Lk 15%! γγ1-4 Mt 22-M=Lk 14164, Mt 2428-28 
87-61 Lk 1793-87 1259-48, Mt 2514%—Lk 19!%27, (2) Von.Soden, considering 
the Lucan tradition the more original ¢ of the two, postulates a systematic 
collection of sayings grouped as follows :—(a) the appearance and reception of 
Jesus, including (i.) words on right mutual conduct (Lk 6-71, cp. Mt 5-7), 
(ii.) the Gentile centurion (77#°=Mt 85:13), and (iii.) the Jewish baptist 
(718-35 = Mt 11719) ; (4) sayings on (i.) offers of discipleship (9°-®= Mt 81%), 
(ii.) the vocation of d. (1o!4=Mt ro’ 117°-*7), (iii.) and the prayers of d. 
(112-8 = Mt 69:18. 77-1) ; (c) sayings on adversaries, including (i.) the calumnies 
of the Pharisees (11!4-°= Mt 1222-80. 48-45. 35-43 6522.) (11,} the condemnation of 
the Pharisees (1197*4= Mt 23), and (iii.) behaviour towards such opponents 
(12-45 Mt 10°43 12% yo!) ; (4) sayings on the world, including (i.) the 


* He adds a few logia scattered throughout the Marcan framework, ¢.g. 
811-13. 7 312. 16 y513b-M and 1678, 

+ His document is printed in full and discussed in detail (pp. 23 f., 361 f.) 
by H. B. Sharmanin The Teaching of Jesus about the Future (Chicago, 1909) 

t So, ¢.g., Wright and Robinson (S/udy of Gospels, 77 £.). 


THE Q SOURCE 199 


attitude of disciples towards worldly possessions (1252. δὲ introduced by 12!*°% 
= Mt 6-88), (ii.) the experiences of disciples in the world (12%9= Mt 244751 
25118 1084-86 162. 575%), and (iii.) signs of the coming storia and finalé 
(121. 6:9. 18-21 = Mt 2119 1381-8) ; with (6) omens of the end in (i.) denunciation 
(13775 =Mt 718% 251}. 72af 811, 930 2387-8), (ji.) warnings for disciples 
(1415:3138) (-86) p54? y714=Mt 22710 ΤΟΣ]. 1819-14. 61. 31.) and (iii.) words on 
the end of the world (17%°"7=Mt 24). (/) Stanton (GHD. ii. 7of.) outlines 
the contents of the source thus: ushering in of ministry of Christ = preaching 
of Baptist (Lk 35 7% 160. V=Mt 3% 7-14), baptism of Jesus (Lk 37°#=Mt 
413. 16-17), temptation of Jesus (Lk 4/%=Mt 4!) ; first stage in preaching 
of gospel =discourse on heirs of the kingdom (Lk 67"), centurion (Lk γ1:10- 
Me 85:10. 18), John and) Jesus’ (Lk 78> *-S=Mt 117-1 16:19). extension οὗ 
gospel=tour of Jesus (Lk 8!'=Mt 9%), warnings to aspirants (Lk 97 @= 
Mt 819-22), saying on harvest (Lk 107=Mt 9°78), directions for preachers 
(Lk 10*!?= Mt τοῦδ᾽ 7-16. #) ; rejection and reception of divine truth = Woe of 
Lk 1o!8-5 (Mt 1171-3), thanksgiving of Lk 107-2? (Mt ττ΄5 2, beatitude of 
Lk 10%-% (Mt 131617); instruction on prayer=Lord’s prayer (Lk 1174= 
Mt 69:18), on earnestness (Lk 11°43=Mt 77"); Jesus and his opponents = 
lawyer (Lk 10%-8=Mt 22°44), accusation of Lk 11’ 17:25 (Mt 1277-3), 
saying of Lk 11-26 (Mt 12), demand for sign (Lk 117% 39.2- Mt 1299-42), 
on lamp of body (Lk 114% = Mt 63:33), denunciation of Lk 1185? exhorta- 
tions to disciples=confessing Christ (Lk 127!=Mt 10-83 12%), trust in 
Providence (Lk 127°4=Mt 6%-%+ 19-21), watching (Lk 12°=Mt 244-44), 
prudence (Lk 124*=Mt 24%°), thoroughness (Lk 1251-8 1426-27 
Mt 20%-88), two parables of Lk_13!8! (Mt 13%!%8), offences (Lk 17!4= 
Mt 1857 6. 21-32), Hower of faith (Lk 17°6=Mt 17°); doom of Jerusalem, 
ete. =Lk 13% (Mt 2397-8) and Lk 17757 (Mt 247-3 3-41), (σὴ Barth 
(Zinl. 225 f.) divides his sayings-source into five sections; z#¢roduction = John 
the Baptist and his preaching (Mt 31:13 etc.), baptism and temptation of Jesus 
(Mt 41:1} etc. ), appearance of Jesus in Galilee (Mt 4!*""" etc.) ; Jesus’ preaching 
on the kingdom=righteousness (Mt 51-12 17-22. 27-48 61-6. 16-18 71-6. 12, 15-20, 24-27 — 
Lk 6”), reconciliation (Mt 5%°°*=Lk 12%), prayer (Mt 675 77U—Lk 
111-18), riches (Mt 6-4= Lk 1277 1613), childlikeness (Mt 181% 1% 14 ete.) ; 
against the world=message of Baptist (Mt 117!=Lk 7185), Beelzebub 
sayings (Mt 1272-82 43-45), on signs (Mt 12%2=Lk 117-82), against the 
Pharisees (Mt 237% etc.), parable of lost sheep (Mt 18%38=Lk 1547), 
revelation (Mt 11%°?7=Lk 107-22), parable of sower (Mt 13% 18-3 etc.,), 
woe (Mt 11°7*%=Lk το δ δὴ, wail over Jerusalem (Mt 23°78=Lk 1354), 
parable of feast (Mt 22°4=Lk 141%") ; calling of disciples = Kapharnaum- 
centurion (Mt 8°!0=Lk γ1:10), felicitation of disciples (Mt 13!0!7= Lk 10-4), 
three aspirants (Mt 8!*?2=Lk 9°"), counsels to disciples (Mt 10%7-8= Lk 
14*7), disciples as light (Mt 516 16. 67-23 etc.), disciples on salt (Mt 518 etc.), 
mission of disciples (Mt τοῦδ etc.), promise of divine help (Mt το δ 5 1 
1212), discord (Mt 10%°6=Lk 124958), offences (Mt 18% 15-23 etc.), faith 
(Mt 17° etc.), seed and leaven (Mt 13%! etc.); the future=rejection of 
unworthy disciples (Mt 7151 21-38 etc.), on loyalty (Mt 24%! etc.), 
sudden coming of Son of man (Mt 24°71=Lk 177-87), use of talents 
(Mt 25'*8=Lk 19.3.7), speech on Parousia (Mt 24** etc.). Finally (4), 
Allen’s (Matthew, pp. lviif.) analysis of the Matthzean Logia (‘‘a collection 


200 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


of Christ’s sayings containing isolated sayings, sayings grouped into discourses 
and parables”), based on Mt like that of Barnes, includes :—53-!% 18-16. 17-48 
61-33 qi-a gil-12 gi 87-38 yO5b-8. 283 10 024-41 (not in this connection) 1 72-30 (not necessarily 
in this order) ; 25-12 1225-45 (not necessarily in this order) 1 46 1}: 24-30. 88 (ἢ. 31-52 1 am -“ 
1617-19 7720 γ188-4. 10. 12-35 Ql0-12, 38. 201-16 9116. 28-82. 43 551-14, 35-40 2.2 (not necemarily 
in this order) 2410-12, 28-27, 808, S1-41. 49-51 9 51-18, 14-90, 81-46 () 2652-54 (ἢ 


With these eight outlines eight others, which enter into rather closer 


parallel details, may be compared. 


(a) O. HoLTzMANn (Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. pp. 25 f.). 


Mt gi 
Lk 31:9. 1600. 41:1 620-49 72-10 


Mt 77-1 1243-45. 38-42 622t- ates 1076t. 625-33. 19-21 2433. 1074-36 162t- Gees 
I 139-53 127-9: 22-31. 33f. 


Lk I 19-13. 24-32. 34-36 


Mt. 1321-38 7st. 22f. 
Lk rig eee 24-W 133: 


Mt 6% i 5% 187 


2 351.99 Ι 211 


411 55-777 5-13 112-19 
po giro 102716 


13% 145 


819-22 I οὔ II 20-24 I 15-27 65:1 
I οὐ ἡ II 1-4 


1239-46. 51-66 125 


2313 221-14 τοῦτ» 18:2:-6 


1411 18 (403 y 426t 15*7 


1815. 21f. 1720 2455: 251. Ὁ 1933 


Lk 163 I 616 I 617 I 7 lf. I 7p 


175! 1722-87 1912-28 22:9. 


(ὁ) HARNACK (BNT. 127f., 253 f., Gk. text and discussion).* 


Mt ae 7-12 411 ΕΣ 6. 11-12 
Lk Bie 16-17 gis 611- 20-23 


Bea. 42. 44-48 
629. 80. 27-28. 35b. 32-33. 36 (81 637-38. 4lf. 6 


"13 71-5 I 5 


Mt 10%25 716-18t. 44 1.)88. 721. 24-27 7284 QO-10.18 712-11 716-19 70 


Lk 69 6-44 646-49 


Mt 819-22 951-38 10168 1012-18 τοῖν 


10 7 PES ηϑι-δὺ 9? 10? 11 


1015 I yp 21-23 10” I 125-37 13.656 Ὁ 


Lk 9° yo? τὸ τοῦ ov 
Mt 65:15 77-11 222-23, 25. 27-28. 80, 43-45 


1012 yol-i5 1ο}8 1021-23 χροϑβυ- 


1238-39. 41-42 Re 622-23 23% 18. 23 


Lk I 13: Ι 193-18 II 14, 17. 19. 20. 23-26 


Mt 23% 27. 29. 80-32, 84-36 1076-338 122 


1118 29-32 1139 y 134-35 II δῶ. 42, 


625-88 619-219 443-01 1034-36 


Lk I 139. uM. 47-52 1229 1219 


811-18 2387-39 2112 09 yo εΙ8 1912-18 


Mt 515: I gue 78-16 


1222-31 7233-84 289-40. 42-46 1251. 58 


Lk 1258-59 I aes I as 


Mt 6% I 112-18 518 


583 187 815. 21-22 1720 2426-28. 37-41 10” 


Lk 16" 16% 46" 168 171 17787 36:21. ξεῶδ γ78 


Mt 25” 19% 
ΤᾺ το 2253 


(c) WELLHAUSEN. 


Mt 3-8 411: 51:12. 38-48 


619-84 71-6. 7-11. 18-97 


85:18 po18 111: 


Lk 411 405 620-23. 27-367 522-84 G 37-427 9-13 643-49 71-10 τοι τ 716-30 


* Special criticism of this reconstruction by Burkitt (J7'S., 1907, 454-459) 5 


Windisch (ZW7., 1908, 135f.); Emmet (47. xix. 297f., 358f.), and 


W. C. Allen (#7. xx. 445-449). 


THE Q SOURCE 201 


Mt I 12-80 1 272-42 (25 2313:89 241-51 2514-90) 


(4) ROEHRICH. 
Mt cor (14-15 9) 41:1 5-7 85-13. 18-22 o°2-#4. 37-38 10-15. 26-41 


Lk 41: 41:18 620-49 110 g??-60 114-15 10916 = 22-9. 49-53 7 435:1| 


Mt 111-15 1115-80 1222-23. 27-28. 80. 33-45 
Lk 1758 τοῦθ 7p Fees 1013-15. 21-22 12% 23 643-45 I 12 29-32 


Mt 1316-17. 24-30. 33, 44-50 161-4 17-20 15 187: 10-11, 18-1δ 201-16 214-16. 28-32 


Lk 10%-% 13% 124 176 171 1517 (174) 
Mt 221-14 Zone 18-39 2476-28. 37-41. 43-51 251} 2 ole 31-40 
Lk (14/84) 20” Up 87. 26-27. 35 1239-40. 42-46 (1912-27) 
(ec) WENDT. 
Mt 411 5-7 (pt.) ἢ 85-18 112-19 2128-35 819-22 951: 


Lk 41:0. 16-17 20-49 7617-18 72-10 718-35 1616 736-50 gis g°-63 101-16 


Μι 101-16. 4-42 y 120-24 1 125-30 1515: 67-15 "πὰ 0558: 1222-45 164 6231. ΗΝ 


ΠΤ τὰ 1017-42 111-13 1 114-32 645 1 133-54 

Mt 1074-33 I 232 ou 240 t pala 10°4-39 538 I 631. fei 

Lk 121-12 64 1213-34 I 235-46 13” I 249-53 1425: J 7s epee 1254-58 131011 
Mt I gitl:ss vist. 22t. gut 221-14 25.159 Ι 410. 25its 
Lk US 14:5: ros 141-6 14714 15* 8-32 161-18 
Mt 6% I 88-35 I ay 2476-28. 87-41 


Lk 1011. 1241-48 1614-81 189-14 171-4 151 Ι 71 Ὁ 7-21 1772-8. 37 181-8 


Mt 21 15f. 21% 19% 510 ws 
Lk τοῦτ 215 416-0 τ [oll γχρῦττάς 2018 2160. WO ee 
Mt 977-8 125-7 1374-30- 47-50 13%. 52 7617-18 1724-31 7819-20 1910-13 201-16 
LMT Opal ei ToT he a hae FA a τα 
Mt 2313 2551-6 
Lk 

(f) Hawkins (ZS. 107 f.). 


Mt 37-10 318 48-11 cl-4. 6. 11-12. 18, 25-26. 39-40. 42. 41-48 69-18. 20-94 
Lk 379 217 43-18 620-23 1617 258-59 627-30. 32-36 112-4 [233b-34 784-85 7618 


Mt 625-33 71-2. 8-5. 7-14. 21-27 85-19 
Lk 1222-31 651. 88. 41-42 7 79-18 ΟἿΣ 393-24 (%) (481 32-27 () 647-49 71-3. 6-8 
Μι 81-12. 19-22 97-33 ΤΥ. 88. 10. 11-18. 15-16a, 24-254, 26-38. 40 

Lk 133% 957-6010? 109% 9a 4. 7b. 8. 5-6. 12.3 G40 752-9. 51-53 7 4(6-27) {O18 
Mt 112-% 4-13. 16-19. 21-27 1222-23. 27-28 1239. 33-35, 38-39 
Lk 718-19. 22-28 7616 731-35 70 12:16 7 o21-23 1 1 14. 19-20 112. 16. 29-32. 24-28 
Mt 124-445 = 316-17. 33 1514. 1720 131. 12-14, 15. 21-22 19% 


1κ 655. το ge OP το 7! 1587 197 gay 


202 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


Mt 23% 12-14. 23. 25-27. 29-81, 34-39 2427-28. 87-41. 45-δ1α 
Lk 1195 ql) 115% 42 39. 41. 44 [). 87-01 384-85 724. 87 726-27. 84-3δ 280-40, 42-48 


(g) J. Weiss (SN7.? 1906). 
Mt 3720 4212. 4111 ε10-6. 10. 18. 15. 18. 20-48 (61:-9ὴ 610: 
Lk 31:9 gui 7) 1133 Ts 1616: 1618? 117-4 
Mt (614-152) 619-88 71-8. 7-18, 17-22n, 24-28 5-18. 19-22 


Lk 1613 7283f. Ἕ 184-35 7 722-31 [121 11728:-241. G47-49 71-8. 7-10 οΥ1-6ὺ 


Mt 951-38 107-88. 10 1. 118. 12-13, 141. 15-164. 17-22 2, 24-25a. 26a-40 
Lk 13% 80 τοῦς 1911-ἰ12 14% 27 1Ἰοἷθ 122 γ. Sif. 


Mt 113.9: 11. 16-19, 21-27 1.211. 23-24. 27-28. 33. 35. 38-39. 41-45b ig ane 81-33 2 
Lk τ: τ2θ, 285-85 1131. 21-22 1. 7 IST. 1219 1129-31 5 1.24-26 1073-24 i 
Mt 187 121, 15. 22 2 [32a b 221-10 23° 6-71, 13-15. 234. Ὁ, 25. 27. 29-31. 34-39 


Lk 1715 1557 1756 113. 15f. 1416-23 [139-52 1411 190-27 


Mt 247-2. 37-41. 42-44? 248-51 25h; 181 
TL τοϑά-δδ -».Χ8-"4, 26-27. ὃϊ. 838380.;;, 1589-40. 1541-46 τοῦ ρ.»22-8}. ALD 
Lk as ya 10 81, 390, f. 1239-40 1241-46 me 2272 23 1, 24f. 1 


(Δ) B. Weiss (Quellen d. Syn. Ueberlieferung, pp. 1-96, Greek text and 


discussion). 
Mt 330 212 318-17 41:1 gz-4 8 128-8 73t. 18.20 845-13 
Lk 3°9 308 5:5. 418 IG ITCH GIES I-10) 
Mt 115-19. 21. 81. 731-9 125-50. ol 914 (1) 413-21() 1618-19 6) 798% () 
Lk 7220-8 Breet QI O41 17) glob=17 (ἢ gt (ἢ 


Mt 171-90) 918-22 οὔτ΄ χοῦ oT O'S {120-24 1γ85:80 χ.2161. 9995-40 


Lk 92-20 ο 935-50) 9°60 To? Io? 1028 1o% yole16 17-30 το ~~ —«Q 25-98 
11. 6-11 3:1. 25-37 7 538t. 26-33 1231]. 625f. 543-51 δ, 

Mt 67 7 9 II 12 10 15}. Oo. 5 

Lk 11°38 1114: χ116-26, 29-96 (87-522). 92-9. 10-32 (33-34 ἢ. 80-48, δ4-. Ὁ 

Mt 1381 184. 221. 2016. 571. 53 1 312t. 1112 518.82 1 881. 

κι 18:86 ΒΟ 4,41 ὦ Ξ 0 161-89 ρ1618 6 τ 171-2. 20-end 

‘ 
Mt 2428t- 87% = 2133-44 () 2498) 2415. ) 2482-85 1.928. 


Lk 181-8 (St) 209-18 (ἢ). 45-47 () 28-11 (t) 27 20-28 (2) 91 29-83 9 924-80. 35-88 


If Q was a gospel, #.e. an attempt to present notable sayings 
of Jesus in a biographical outline of his life, the inclusion of John 
the Baptist’s preaching is as intelligible at the beginning as the 
omission of the passion-story at the end is_ unintelligible. 
Furthermore, when it is identified with the Matthaan Logia 
(or with some form of these), it is not easy to understand 
how it could have been a narrative of the life of Jesus, since 
Luke (115) implies that no such narrative was drawn up by an 
eye-witness. Finally, if Q is assumed to have ended without 


THE Q SOURCE 203 


any account of the death or resurrection, it can hardly have been 
composed very soon after the resurrection (K. Lake, Zxf.7 vii. 
494~-507).* It is difficult to suppose that at any time between 
30 and 50 a.D. the death and resurrection of Jesus were so un- 
important to Christians, in view of the speedy return of Messiah, 
that a gospel could be written which ignored them. These 
difficulties do not compel the introduction of a passion-narrative 
into Q, much less its relegation to the lifetime of Jesus, but 
they reinforce the hypothesis that it was not a gospel at all. 

When the Matthzan Logia are identified with Q, the date 
of the latter (at any rate in its original form) is not later than the 
seventh decade of the first century; so far as the internal 
evidence goes, it may even fall within the sixth. It is thus an 
apostolic Aramaic treatise which has every likelihood of having 
been composed prior not only to Mark, but to the Ur-Marcus; it 
reflects the faith and mission and sufferings of the primitive 
Jewish Christian church of Palestine, long before the crisis of 
70 A.D. began to loom on the horizon. t 


Wellhausen’s (Zz/. 65 f., 731.) attempt to prove that Q is not only later 
than, but for the most part inferior to, Mark, rests on an undue depreciation 
of the former (see the careful proofs of Bousset in 7R., 1906, 5-14, 43f. ; 
Harnack, 8.7. ii. 193f.; with Jiilicher’s less certain protests in Meue 
Linien, 43 f., and Denney’s Jesus and the Gospel, 194 f.), an assumption that 
the projection of early Christian christology was larger in the case of the 
sayings than of the narratives, and an idea that Mark harvested the best of 
the available sayings which were authentic (‘‘if, unintentionally, this or that 
saying escaped his notice, nevertheless the gleaning of old and genuine 
material which he left for others cannot have been incomparably richer than 
his own harvest,” Zz/. 86). But Q is not a humble Ruth in the field of the 
logia ; Mark did not aim, as Luke did, at completeness ; and it is to reverse 
the probabilities of the case, to discredit the tradition of the sayings of Jesus 
in favour of the narratives.$ Both grew under the spirit of the church, but 


* ** No date after the Passion seems impossibly early” (p. 503). ‘‘ Every 
year after 50 A.D. is increasingly improbable for the production of Q” 
(p. 507). Resch (Der Paulinismus u. die Logia Jesu; TU. xiii. 1904), who 
thinks, like J. Weiss, that Paul knew Jesus on earth, explains the Pauline 
teferences by conjecturing that the apostle got a copy of the Logia from 
Ananias; but the proofs are much too speculative. 

+ Cp. Bousset, 77., 1906, 46 (‘‘ Jedenfalls lehnt die Gemeinde, die diese 
Worte iiberlieferte [¢.e. 178 10°" 1053], es ab, ihrerseits Heidenmission zu 
treiben, wie die Urapostel nach Gal 29"). 

t Contrast Wundt’s recent remark (cited by Montefiore) in his Vovhers- 
psychologie, ii. 3, 1909, p. 528: ‘No unprejudiced person, even tolerably 
familiar with the formation of myths, and fairly well acquainted with the 


204 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


the former are not inferior in historicity to the latter. It is doubtful if the 
words υἱοῦ Βαραχίου stood originally in Q (Mt 23%); but, even if they did, - 
they are not a historical anachronism which proves that Q (or this part of it) 
was written after 68 (70) A.D. (Wellhausen, 27... 119-121). The reference 
is to the Zechariah of 2 Ch 24”, not to the wealthy and pious Zechariah who 
(Josephus, B/. iv. 5. 4) was assassinated by the Zealots in the temple. 
Wellhausen has made a sad and rare slip in describing the former as ‘‘ quite 
an obscure man.” He was, on the contrary, a hero of Jewish tradition (cp. 
B. Sanhedr. 96b ; Gittin, 57b; J. Taanith, 69a), whose midrashic elaborations 
of 2 Ch 249-25 go back to an early date (cp. Nestle, Z7. xiii. 582, ZVWV., 
1905, 198-200; G. F. Moore, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 
xxvi. 317f.; Allen, DCG. i. pp. 171-172). It is the legendary fame of 
Zechariah ben Jehoiada, and of the bloody expiation exacted by God for his 
death, which underlies the logion; from Abel to Zechariah means from the 
first to the last book of the canonical OT (z.¢. 2 Chronicles, where Z. is the 
last martyr mentioned) ; and this collocation of the two martyrs is much more 
natural for an early Christian than the other. The logion (cp. Lk 11?) 
may be a quotation from a Wisdom source, or it may directly reflect, like 
many other passages of the NT, the midrashic atmosphere which surrounded 
the OT for early Christians, but it has not any bearing on the date of Q. 


The subsequent fortunes of Q are unknown, unless traces of 
it can be found in some of the apocryphal gospels (e.g. the gospel 
καθ᾽ “EBpatovs). It suffered a sea-change, when it was employed 
by Matthew; but this incorporation did not destroy its in- 
dependent circulation. John the presbyter seems still to have 
known it at the beginning of the second century, and, if Luke 
wrote then, he is another witness to its existence as a separate 
document during the last decades of the first century. 

§5. Q and Mark.—Any reconstruction of Q exhibits a 
certain amount of parallelisms (cp. list in Burkitt’s Zransmission, 
147-166) between it and Mk., which may be held to imply a 
literary dependence of Mk. on Q. So, 4 ¢.,-B.Weiss,* van 
Rhijn (Zheol. Studién, 1897, 432f.), Titius (74S 284-331), 
Resch (Paulinismus, pp. 544f.), Badham, Jolley (0. cz. pp. 
113f.), Bousset, Barth, J. Weiss, O. Holtzmann, Loisy, von 


growing light thrown on the sources of ancient Oriental myths, can doubt any 
longer that, except for a few incidents in the narratives of the Passion which 
probably possess adequate historical attestation, the outward life of Jesus is 
a tissue of legends. But what these legends leave untouched, and what is 
never found in their mythological counterparts and predecessors, is the 
series of sayings and speeches of Jesus handed down to us in the synoptic 
gospels.” 

* The rejection of the Ur-Marcus theories usually leads to the conclusion 
that Mark employed Q (cp. B. Weiss, Quel/en des Lukas-Evglims, 134 fu, 
190). 


THE Q SOURCE 205 


Soden, Bacon, Nicolardot, and Montefiore (i. pp. xxxvi f.).* 
This hypothesis, however, even with the qualifications which 
Loisy and others have introduced into Weiss’ statement, is upon 
the whole to be rejected. (a) The theory assumes that Q had 
a monopoly of such sayings. But the tradition of the churches 
was far too widespread to permit any such restriction of logia. 
Sayings of Jesus, such as come into question here, must have 
been circulating in many directions ; it is contrary to all probabili- 
ties that they were drawn into the single channel or canal of Q, 
so that any other writer had to derive them from this source. In 
the nature of the case there must have been a considerable 
amount of material common to the Petrine tradition and the 
Matthzean Logia; it is to adopt an ultra-literary method if we ex- 
plain any parallels (e.g. 421-22 67-13 937. 421. yo#f 1122-25) between 
the reproduction of the former in Mark and the latter by the 
hypothesis of borrowing, especially as Q itself must have gone 
back partially to the Petrine tradition of the sayings (cp. Loisy, i. 
114). (ὦ) No satisfactory explanation is offered why Mark made 
such scanty use of Q. Several of its sayings would have been 
perfectly relevant to his purpose; we can hardly imagine a 
Christian evangelist ignoring words like those of Mt 1127, or 
assuming that because his readers already possessed Q, it was 
superfluous to repeat its contents, and even the hypothesis that he 
only knew a shorter form of Q fails to meet this objection. (ὦ 
In no instance is it absolutely necessary, either on the score of 
substance or of style, to assume that Mk. borrowed from Q. 
Thus passages like 17-10-11. 12-13 may quite as well be summary 
echoes of oral tradition as of Q (cp. Wernle, Syn. Frage, 208-212 ; 
Scott-Moncrieff, AZark, 78-83; Stanton, GHD. ii. 1o9f.). It is 
very doubtful if stories like 14045 21-12 gl4f and sayings like 717" 
really go back to Q at all; certainly the small apocalypse of 
13° does not. In some passages (eg. 37%) it is even possible 
that the canonical Mk. has been affected by Mt. or Lk.,; 


* Jiilicher (Zzx/. 229-323) admits that the common element of Mk. and 
Q is extremely scanty, and hesitates to dogmatise, on the ground that the 
compositeness and accretion of Q—at once older and younger than Mk.— 
render any judgment on the latter’s indebtedness extremely precarious. 
Harnack, who used to be sound on this matter (cp. BT. ii. 225f.), has 
recently made slight concessions to B. Weiss (cp. 7ZZ., 1908, 463f., “αἱ 
least Mark knew the circle in which Q, or large portions of it, existed orally, 
before it was committed to writing, and existed substantially in the same form ”’), 

t+ So Wellhausen for 84-12 15 


206 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


while in others (e.g. the parables 41.320. 26f with 521f o48f 191012) 
Mt. and Lk. may have borrowed directly from Mk. instead 
of from Q. When allowance is made for these factors or 
possibilities, as well as for accidental coincidences, the data 
for any literary relation between Mk. and Q practically dis- 
appear. The abstract possibility must indeed be left open, that 
the author of Mk. (though not the Ur-Marcus) was aequainted 
with some form of Q; he could hardly fail to be.* Perhaps 
even he intended, by his re-editing of the ur-Marcus, to supple- 
ment Q, just as the author of Mt. afterwards fused Mk. and 
Q into a more rounded unity. Otherwise, it would not be easy 
to understand why he casually quoted it, perhaps from memory 
—which is the very utmost that can be inferred from the 
relevant data. 


When the Matthzan Logia are regarded as composed solely of sayings 
couched in the form of the Semitic Wisdom lore, to the exclusion not only of 
historical narrative but also of the parables and larger discourses or Halacha 
of Jesus (Briggs, /BLZ., 1904, 191-210), it is naturally easier to find traces of 
their use in Mark, 7.e. in passages, ¢.g., 271-2 28-29 421-25 ΟἹ 941-50, which have 
been added to the original Mk. by the later editor. But this limitation of 
Q’s scope is untenable. 


§ 6. Matthew and Luke.—There is no reason a priori why 
Mt. should not have been one of Lk.’s sources as well as Mk. 
Chronologically,t this is possible. Still, the coincident variations 
of Lk. and Mt., as against Mk., and especially their agreements, 
are not to be explained by their use of the Ur- Marcus (see above, 
pp. 192 f.), nor by Lk.’s use of Mt., but for the most part by the 
operation of the same desire to smooth out the Marcan text. 
In some cases they are accidental coincidences ; in others, they 
are due to oral tradition ; a large number came from Q (especially 
the parts more or less parallel to Mk.) or from common sources ; 
and finally, allowance has to be made for later conformations } 


* The later Mark is dated, especially as the edition of an ur-Marcus, the 
more difficult it is to deny the possibility, and even the probability, that the 
writer knew Q, and to explain how it could be merely a subsidiary source. 

+ On the theory that Mt. is later, Lk. has even been held to form one of its 
sources (Hitzig, Volkmar, Pfleiderer). 

+ Assimilation took place between the texts of Mt. and Lk., during the 
period preceding the εὐαγγέλιον rerpaydppov, more readily than in the case of 
Mk., which did not circulate with equal popularity (cp. Lake in 7S. vii. 3, 
Ρ. lvii, and—for a discussion of later harmonistic corruptions—Burgon and 
Miller’s Causes of Corruption of Tradit, Text of Gospels, 1896, pp. 89 f.). 


THE SMALL APOCALYPSE 207 


of the text (e.g. Lk 22°). The infancy-narratives are inde- 
pendent (see below), and the passion-story in Luke does not 
exhibit any traces of adherence to the specifically Matthzean 
narrative. The data in the intervening sections are upon the 
whole fairly covered by the common use of Q and by the 
presence of Luke’s special source (sources). The hypothesis is 
not to be dismissed hastily, but a scrutiny of the evidence leads 
to a verdict of “non proven.” At most, the claim is* that Mt. 
was merely a subsidiary and secondary source ; but even this is 
less probable than the similar relationship urged between Mk. 
and Q. 

Fullest recent statement of the case for Lk.’s use of Mt., by E. Simons, 
Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthaus benutzt ? (Bonn, 1880). 
Similarly Stockmeyer (ZSchw., 1884, 144 f.), E. Y. Hincks (JBZ., 1891, 
92-156), Holtzmann, Wendt, Halévy, Soltau (P//., 1907, 185f.), etc. The 
opposite case is put best by Wernle (Sy. Frage, 40-61), Roehrich (of. cit. 
179-184), B. Weiss (Die Quellen des Lukas-Evglms, pp. 30f., 39, 56, 
61f., 73, 222, etc.), Burton (pp. 3of.), Stanton (GAD. ii. 140f.), and 
Zahn (/NV7. iii. 107 f.), followed by Schmiedel (2.81. 1860-1862), Harnack, 
Jiilicher, etc. 


§ 7. Other sources of the Synoptic Gospels.—(a) A written (ὁ 
ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, Mk 1314 = Mt 2415) fly-leaf of early Christian 
apocalyptic prophecy, or ‘small apocalypse,’ consisting of material 
set in the ordinary triple division common to apocalyptic 
literature (cp. Apoc 912 1114); 

ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων: Mk 1378 = Mt 2498 = Lk 21%1), 

θλίψις: Mk 131420 = Mt 2415-22 = (Lk 2120-24), 

παρουσία: Mk 1374-27 = Mt 247981 = (Lk 2125-27. 28), 


The details of the re-constructed apocalypse are not quite 
certain, but its general contour is unmistakable: it parts, as a 
whole, readily from the context and forms an intelligible unity, 
whatever were its original size and aim. If the introductory 
passage Mk 1356 (= Mt 2445) is added (with Weiffenbach, 
Keim, and others), probably Mk 137-23 (= Mt 2423-25) should 
also be incorporated (as, e.g., by Keim, Weizsacker, and Spitta), 

* ** Seine Beriicksichtigung des Mt. ist also keine systematische, planvolle, 
durch bestimmte Gesichtspunkte geregelte ; vielmehr miissen wir unsere 
Auffassung dahin formuliren, dass der kanonische Mt. fiir Le, ein Neben- 
quelle ” (Simons, of. ct. p. 108). 

t Wendt (Mk 137 85: 14°20. 4-27. 801), Weiffenbach and Pfleiderer (Mk 
137° 14-20. 24-27), Loisy (Mk 1.368’ 1417-20. 24-81), Schmiedel (Mk 137%: 14-20. 
44-71. 8), Wellhausen (Mk 137-6 1% 14-22 24-27), Holizmann (Mk 135% 14-20. 24-27) 


208 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


since Mk 137! takes up Mk 138. In ΜΚ. it stands apart from 
even the parabolic collection in 4 as the only long speech put 
into the mouth of Jesus; Mt seems to preserve it in a more 
primitive or archaic form,* though he uses part of it (1o0!7-2?) in 
an earlier connection ; while Luke has coloured it by the light of 
the Roman siege of Jerusalem, and the delay in the Parousia.t 
Luke, however, seems only to have known it as a component 
part of Mk. Whatever may be the historic value of the sayings 
in the apocalypse, it is a literary product, not the record of what 
Jesus said on this or any other occasion, but a tract of the 
apocalyptic propaganda. “In a private conversation with two 
or three disciples, Jesus would not speak in a sustained style of 
eschatological commonplace.” ἢ 

The period of the apocalypse is the seventh decade, when 
the approaching fall of Jerusalem seemed to herald the end. 
The fly-leaf is not a waticinium ex euentu, for the Christians of 
the capital did not fly to the mountains, but across the Jordan to 
Pella (κατά τινα χρησμόν, Eusebius declares, H. £. iii. 5. 3); no 
appearance of false messiahs or prophets is known to have taken 
place then, and the Danielic prediction of the βδέλυγμα τῆς 
ἐρημώσεως is coloured not by contemporary incidents, but by 
eschatological tradition. The apocalypse was probably written 
by a Palestinian Jewish Christian (so, ¢eg., Colani, Renan, 


* The Matthzan (24%) definition of τὸ σημεῖον (τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ 
συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος) is quite in keeping with the eschatological programme 
of this gospel. 

+ Spitta (SX., 1909, 384-401), with his usual predilection for Luke, 
reconstructs the eschatological speech of Jesus entirely from the Lucan version, 
where, he holds (like Goguel, L’évangzle de Marc, 228 f.), it is most accurately 
preserved (in Lk 215-9 12-16. 18-24. 10-11. 25b-27. 29-81), ‘Those who, like B. Weiss 
and Bacon, reject the ‘‘small apocalypse” theory outright, make the whole 
speech an agglutination of sayings from Q and editorial insertions,—a theory 
which does not work out naturally, even in its less analytic forms (Stevens, 
NTTA. 152 f.; Briggs, Messtah of Gospels, 132-165 ; Fiebig, PM., 1904, 24f. ; 
Zimmermann, ist. Wert der altesten Ueberlieferung von. der Gesch. Jesu im 
Marcusevglm, 1905, 138 f.). The alternative view, that the whole speech is 
a later composition, is re-stated by Clemen in his review (7ZZ., 1902, 523- 
525) of Weiffenbach’s recent essay on Die Frage der Wiederkunft Jesu 
nochmals kurz erdrtert (1901). The fullest account of the retrospective 
element in Luke’s treatment of the tradition, after A.D. 70, is given in 
Sharman’s Zeaching of Jesus about the Future (1909), pp. 150f. 

1 Muirhead, Zhe Terms Life and Death in the Old and New Testament 
(1908), 123 f. Dr. Muirhead’s adhesion to this theory is notable, as in his 
earlier work on The Eschatology of Jesus (1904) he had refused to accept it. 


THE BIRTH-NARRATIVES 209 


Hausrath, Holtzmann, Keim, Wernle, Wendt, Stanton); _ its 
incorporation in the evangelic tradition was due to the 
existence of genuine eschatological sayings which received a 
fresh accent and emphasis at the period, and to the vivid zest 
for apocalyptic ideas in the Palestinian church of that age. 


Started by Colani (/ésus Christ et les Croyances messianiques de son 
Temps,? 1864, pp. 201t.) and Weiffenbach (in Der Wiederkunftsgedanke 
Jesu, 1873, pp. 69f., 135f.), this hypothesis of the small apocalypse has been 
adopted by writers on the messianic consciousness of Jesus, like Baldensperger 
and Schwartzkopff, as well as by numerous editors and critics of the synoptic 
gospels, including Vischer (7U. ii. 3, p. 9n.), Jacobsen,* Pfleiderer (Jahrbuch 
fiir deutsche Theol., 1868, 134-149, Urc.? i. 379 f.), Simons (p. 74), Mangold, 
Weizsicker (Untersuch. 121f., AA. ii. 22 f.), Renan (iv. chs, iii, and xii., 
Vv. pp. 123-125), Carpenter (First Three Gospels, pp. 222, 322), Cone (Gospel 
Criticism, pp. 282f.), O. Schmiedel, and N. Schmidt (Prophet of Nazareth, 
pp. 132f.). It is now a sententia recepta of synoptic criticism, as may be 
seen from the expositions by Wendt (Lehre Jesu, i. 10f.), Spitta (Ure. ii. 
178f.), Hausrath (iv. 246f.), Keim (v. 235 f.), Holtzmann (HC. i. 96f., 
167f., N7 Th. i. 327-328), Menzies (Zarliest Gospel, 232f.), O Holtzmann 
(Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. 456f.), Charles (Crzt. History of Eschatology, 324 f.), 
Wernle (Syn. Frage, pp. 212-214), Klostermann, Loisy (ii. 393f.), and 
Montefiore. Among recent adherents are to be named Steudel (Der religzose 
Jugendunterricht, 1896), Cheyne (2. 81. i. 21-23), Schweitzer (Das Abend- 
mahl, ii. 95), Wellhausen, Muirhead (ZLzfe and Death in the Old and 
New Test. 124f.), Schmiedel (2.82. ii. 1857), and Stanton (GHD. ii. 116 f.). 
Further details in G. L. Cary (of. c#t. pp. 274f.), Jiilicher (2 γε. 282 f.), 
Burkitt (Gospel History and sts Transmission, 62f.), and Moffatt (HV7. 
637-640). 

(4) The hypothesis of a special source for the birth-narratives 
in Mt. and Lk. has no basis in the internal evidence. Three 
hypotheses of literary criticism are open: the two narratives are 
either (i.) derived from a common pre-canonical source ; or (ii.) 
dependent on each other, the one correcting and amplifying the 
other ; or (iii.) of independent origin. The superiority of (iii.) to 
(ii.) is discussed below. As for (i.), the serious objections to any 
form of it which has been hitherto adduced, whether by Resch 
(Kindheitsevglm nach Lucas u. Matthaeus in TU. x. 5, Leipzig, 
1897 ; Gk. version of a Hebrew original) or by L. Conrady (die 
Quelle der kanonischen Kindhettsgeschichte Jesu, 1900: source = Gk. 


* Jacobsen (Protest. Kirchenzeitung, 1886, 536f.) and N. Schmidt 
contend that this apocalypse was the medium through which the term Son of 
Man, as a messianic title, passed into Mark. The latter critic (op. εἴΖ. 85f., 
132 f., 231 f.) ascribes the small apocalypse and the ground-work of Mt 2339: 
25°" toa Wisdom of God (Lk 11*) or Aramaic apocalypse. 


14 


ΤΟΙ Δ THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


version * of Heb. Protevangelium Jacobi), are the sharp divergence 
of the genealogical tables, and the fact that, apart from the 
tradition of the virgin-birth, the agreement of the narratives (e.g. 
the birthplace, names of parents, Nazareth residence, and 
Davidic descent) require only the data of the synoptic tradition 
to account for their origin. Where Mt. and Lk. agree elsewhere, 
the contour of the agreements is much closer than can be made 
out in their birth-narratives. Furthermore, the prolix and 
fanciful Protevangelium Jacobi betrays, to any trained literary 
sense, the later elaborations of the Christian imagination, with its 
somewhat crude and even coarse expansion of details in the 
canonical descriptions. As for Resch’s theory of a Hebrew Jook 
of the generations of Jesus the messiah (cp. Mt 1! βίβλος γενέσεως 
Ἰ. X.), furnished with a genealogy like the book of Ruth, which, 
when translated into Greek, formed the source of both Matthew 
and Luke (the latter omitting, owing to haste and lack of space, 
what Mt. had already included), the differences between the two 
canonical narratives are enough to upset any such arguments, 
and the whole hypothesis is beset by fanciful and arbitrary 
presuppositions, such as the use of the source in the Prologue to 
the Fourth gospel (of. cit. pp. 243 f.) and its employment, in a 
different Gk. recension, by Justin. The earliest traces of extra- 
canonical sources are to be found in the fancy of the star in 
Ignatius, and in Justin’s allusion to the birth of Jesus in a cave 
near Bethlehem (Dia/. 78), the latter trait occurring in the 
Gospel of James. Justin’s access f to extra-canonical sources of 
information is evident from Afo/. 153 (ὡς of ἀπομνημονεύσαντες 
πάντα τὰ περὶ TOD GwTypos ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν), but it 
is more probable that the bizarre conception of the cave was 
a trait added from contemporary mythology to the canonical 
tradition, than that the latter was modified from an ampler and 
more circumstantial account. The simple precedes the elaborate 
in the evolution of tradition, and the Gospel of James has the 


* Based on the Egyptian myth of Isis, cast in a Hebraised form 
(cp. SK., 1889, 728-784). He (SA., 1904, 176-226) also regards Mt 
2131. as an excerpt from some independent account (moulded on pagan 
lines) of the flight to Egypt, which the apocryphal gospels have preserved 
more fully. 

+ Justin admits that those who rejected the virgin-birth were still 
Christians (ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους, Dia/. 48); but this does not necessarily 
imply that the idea was as yet a comparative novelty (Hillmann in /P7. 


1891, pp. 255 f.). 


DATE OF GOSPELS 211 


stamp neither of originality nor of unity, despite Conrady’s 
pleadings to the contrary (pp. 207 f.).* 


While most of the apostolic fathers ignore the virgin-birth, even when it 
naturally lay in their way to use it in treating the incarnation, Ignatius and 
Aristides (in the Syriac version) allude to it as an accepted article of the 
Christian belief, the former in a series of passages (ZA. 187 τοὶ, Magn. ™ etc.) 
which plainly presuppose a gospel-source corresponding to our present 
Matthew (cp. Smyrn. 1! with Mt 3!”),t the latter also in a sentence which 
implies the use of the canonical birth-stories (4fo/. 2: ‘*God came down 
from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with 
flesh ; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the 
gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them ” 
{z.e. Christians]). Both Ignatius and Aristides, like Melito afterwards, seem 
to fuse the Johannine idea of the incarnation with the synoptic birth-stories.t 


The employment of a Wisdom-source has been already 
noticed (p. 33); but, apart from this and the small apocalypse, 
the other sources of Mt. and Lk. are simply the special documents 
which, in the latter particularly, may be detected by the processes 
of literary analysis. 

ὃ 8. Date of Gospels (E Bi. 1826-1840; A. Wright, Compost- 
tion of Gospels, 128f.).—The earliest tradition upon the date of 
the gospels is that of Irenzus (111. 1. 1; Eus. 4. Z. v. 8. 2-3), 
who means to give chronological information on the point.§ In 
this passage (cp. pp. 15 f.) ἔξοδον, unless it is due to a misinter- 
pretation of 2 P 116 (Blass, Acta Apost. p. 5), refers to the death 
of Peter and Paul, not (Grabe, Harvey, Cornely) to their departure 
from Rome. The allusion is significant ; for, as tradition tended 
to throw back the origin of apostolic writings as far as possible, 
the words of Irenzeus give a terminus a quo for the composition of 


* Cp. Hilgenfeld’s exhaustive refutation (ZW7., 1901, 186f.), with the 
criticisms of Holtzmann (7ZZ., 1901, 135f.) and T. A. Hoben (7he Virgin 
Birth, Chicago, 1905, pp. 12f., also his articles on the ante-Nicene con- 
ception, etc., in 4/7., 1902, 473 f., 709 f.). 

+ The attempts of Hillmann to explain away the language of Ignatius as 
inconsistent with Lk 154-5 33, or to regard γεγεν. ἐκ παρθένου (Smyrn. 11) as 
interpolated, are unavailing. The virgin-birth undoubtedly belonged to the 
Kerugma reproduced by Ignatius, though it is impossible to infer the details 
of the historical tradition which he presupposed. 

t+ Hence the difficulty of agreeing with Usener (Re/ig. Untersuchungen, i. 
92 f.) that Carpokrates and the Ebionites denied the virgin-birth because it 
was absent from the gospels in their possession. 

§ This is denied by Dom Chapman (/7°S., 1905, 563-569), but on 
insufficient grounds. The clause, τοὺ Ilérpov καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν ‘Puyy 
εὐαγγελιζομένων κτλ. , is a simultaneous reference. 


212 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


Mk. and Mt. It is corroborated by the fact that both writers 
incorporate ‘the small apocalypse,’ which cannot well be dated 
earlier than the seventh decade of the first century. Apart 
from this, the evidence is purely internal. 

(2) As the logion of Mk 91 is substantially reproduced in 
Mt 1678 and Lk 9?’, it does not necessarily imply that Mk. was 
written during the first generation of disciples. On the other 
hand, the editing of the small apocalypse shows that the crisis 
of the siege was recent, and that the writer wishes to distinguish 
between this seeming end and the real end. Zhe gospel must 
jirst be preached to all nations (1319) ; then, and then only, would 
the Parousia atrive. Meantime, the original Ausbandmen of the 
vineyard had been destroyed, and the vineyard given 20 others. 
The internal evidence of Mk. thus corroborates upon the whole 
the view that it represents a final version of the Ur-Marcus com- 
posed shortly after the events of A.D. 60-70. 

(ὁ) Since Mt. used not the Ur-Marcus but Mk. in substantially 
its present form, the ¢exminus a quo of its composition is A.D. 70. 
The phrase in 278 and 2815 (ἕως τῆς σήμερον, μέχρι τῆς σήμερον) 
tallies with the general impression that a considerable interval 
nas elapsed since the days of Jesus, during which the church has 
become organised and belief developed. The archaic character 
of the main source and the strongly marked eschatology of the 
gospel are of less moment for the question of its date than the 
final editor’s anticipation of a prolonged period (cp. 28°) during 
which the Gentile mission was to proceed apace. Mt. falls then 
between A.D. 70 and 110, since it was certainly known to Ignatius 
(passages and proofs in GHD. i. 27 f.; WZA. 76f.), although the 
fact that Ignatius employs and quotes another evangelic source 
with equal belief, shows how far our canonical gospels yet were 
from a position of undisputed authority within the churches. The 
dubious nature of the supposed allusions in Hermas is generally 
recognised (cp. GHD. i. 72f.; MZA. 117f.), but in any case 
the ¢erminus ad quem, as fixed by the traces of the gospel in the 
second century, is ¢ A.D. 110. 


Efforts are still made to date Mt. earlier than A.D. 70, but without success. 
It is a mistake, for example, to suppose that there would be no point in 
preserving eschatological predictions like those of the small apocalypse after 
A.D. 70. Many Christians in the second century and later looked forward ta 
a literal fulfilment, ¢.g., of a prophecy like that of Mt 24) (cp. Iren. adv. 
/Taer. ν. 25. 2). Belser, again, uses the anti-Pharisaic element to prove thas 


DATE OF GOSPELS 213 
the gospel was composed under the stress of the hard times which befell 
Palestinian Christianity, when Herod Agrippa 1. made common cause with 
the Pharisees (Ac 12"), But even if the historical influence were proved, it 
would not determine the date of the gospel as contemporary; the sharp 


A.D. BEFORE 70. BETWEEN 70 AND 100. AFTER 100. 
Belser (c. 44), Birks (c.| δ. 70: Carpenter, Menzies. | Hoekstra (100), 
48), Schenkel (45-58), | 70-80: Volkmar (73), Renan KGstlin (100-110). 
Hitzig (55-57), Gloag} (76), Beyschlag, Wright, | Keim (115-120). 
( -55), Mill (63). Wernle, Bacon, Well- | S. Davidson (120). 
64-67: Bartlet, Schafer, hausen, von Soden, | Usener (120-130). 
Kiippers, Schanz, Burkitt, Loisy (75), O. | Baur (130f.) 
Robinson (6:), Zim- Schmiedel (80), Goguel 
Mark* mermann (66), Zahn,| (75-35), Montefiore. 
J. Weiss. 80-go: Holsten, Hilgenfeld. ἡ 
65-70: Abbott, Alford, | Rovers (c. go), Bleek. 
Allen, W. Bruckner, 
Stanton, Swete, Sal- 
mond, Wendt, Weiss, 
Harnack, Maclean, 
Barth, Peake. 
40-50: Grotius, Cornely. | 70-80: Holsten, Hilg., Reuss | Loisy (¢. 100). 
55-60: Roberts, Gloag. (after 75), Weiss, Wright, | 5. Davidson (e. 105), 
c.60: Belser (Gk.), Mill, Harnack (?), Sanday, Carpenter. 
Michaelis. Bruce, Baljon, Allen (65- | Holtzmann( =rro). 
c. 63: Zimmermann, 75), J. Weiss (70-100), | Volkmar, Soltau 
Solger. Barth. (110). 
c. 65: Hug, Maier, | 80-go: Rovers (c. 80), Kést- | Schmiedel (. -130). 
Matthewt Schanz. lin, Renan, W. Brickner, | Baur, Pfleiderer 
66: Barnes. Réville, Jiilicher ( -06),| ( -140). 
68 +: Bleek, Meyer, Zahn (in Gk.), McGiffert, 
Adeney, Bartlet, Bacon, Stanton (c. 80). 
Godet, Jacquier, Keim. | g0--roo: Carpenter (2), 
60-70: Batiffol, Hug, Wernle, Burkitt, O. 
Rose, Schanz. Schmiedel  (go-120?), 
Montefiore. 
> qo-80: Bleek, Beyschlag,|c. 100: Holsten, 
reo 56), Kiippers Weiss, Adeney, Lartlet, Scholten, Pfleid., 
s8260> Alford. Schar Eeyore panes Sanday, a ers: O. 
Gloag, Belser (61-62) peeeiaanees ᾿ς Pere atin 
?| 80-90: KGstl.n, Mangold, | 100-110: Volkmar 
Cornely (59-63). Abb C ? ’ 
63-64: Horne, Michaelis poet, Aaa Al Rovers, __ Holtz- 
Lukeg : ω ττπουτενἢ Weiss, Bacon, McGiffert, mann, S. David- 
Guericke, Fillion, ‘ali Fes eS - 
Resch Jiilicher( -120), Harnack, son, Hilgenfeld, 
Geaaieoder ean Briggs, Barth (75-90). Weiss, Hausrath, 
ἜΗΝ ane δ chafer. | 9°10: Keim, Renan, Schmiedel. 
Batiffol. ἢ ᾿ Soltau, Wernle, Knopf, |c. 130: Baur. 
6 Σ Jac ae Burkitt, Loisy, Peake, 
Cad Cow ACUI: Montefiore. 


* The patristic hypothesis of (4) A.D. 43 (Jerome), and (4) A.D. 64-67 


(Iren., Clem. Alex.), are still maintained by some Roman Catholic writers, 
e.g. (a) by Patrizi, Bisping, Schegg, and Reithmayr; (4) by Hug, Maier, 
Schanz, and Jacquier. 

+ J. H. Wilkinson (Four Lectures on Early History of Gospels, 1898) 
places Mt. in A.D. 70-75 (Mk. =65~-70, Lk. = 78-93), with an editing of all 
three in Asia Minor (A.D. 106-115). 

tIn Hove Evangelice (ed. 1892, pp. 49-179, 252f.), T. R. Birks dates 
Luke in A.D. 51 and Matthew (pp. 292f.) in A.D. 42. 


214 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


memories ef it might have lingered and reappeared decades later. Belser’s 
corroborative arguments do not amount to much, ¢.g. the reliance on the 
tradition that Matthew left Jerusalem in A.D. 42 and published his gospel 
before his departure, when the misconceptions of Christians in the church 
who were more Pharisees and Jews than anything else (Ac 11} 1511) still 
formed the primary object of the gospel. Allen ( 7. xxi. 439-444) similarly 
tries to show that the alleged ‘catholic’ and ecclesiastical allusions are not 
incompatible with its composition at Antioch ¢ A.D. 50, but the literary 
dependence on Mk. is by itself sufficient to disprove all such hypotheses. 


(c) Luke’s date depends not only on his use of Mk., which 
is certain, and his use of Mt., which is extremely uncertain, 
but on the relations between his work and Josephus, on 
which see pp. 29-31. The above table will give some idea of 
the various periods which are assigned to it and to the other two 
gospels. 

While the gospels of Mark and Matthew, together with the 
two volumes by Luke, which make up the historical literature 
within the NT Canon, were not composed till the last quarter of 
the first century, and while all of them, particularly the synoptic 
gospels, are composite, their sources reach back to the period 
prior to A.D. 70. This covers not simply their traditions but 
their written materials. Q, or the common source of Mt. and 
Lk., was certainly composed by the seventh decade of the century, 
probably even earlier; Mk., in its original shape and source, 
dates from the former period. Thus the roots of the historical 
literature lie in the same period as the correspondence of Paul, 
though the flowers bloom side by side with the later pastorals 
and homilies. It is of still more importance that the two 
main roots of the subsequent evangelic tradition are deep in the 
primitive Palestinian circle, and that neither shows any distinct 
influence of Pauline tendencies. 

The primitive epistolary literature of the early church was, 
like the primitive ceramic art of Hellas, comparatively private. 
Upon vases intended for the household’s use, painting first 
lavished its grace and skill; and in letters for the quieter 
purposes of intercourse, the literary spirit was employed by 
Christians before the aim and scope of it became enlarged. 
In the nature of things, the use of epistles, taken over from 
Judaism, especially Alexandrian Judaism (e.g. Jer 29! 35. 1, epp. 
of Jerem. and Baruch, also 2 Mac 1" 10), Ὁ preceded evangelic 


“The famous epistle of Aristeas to Philokrates has been called ‘a 
predecessor, in form, of the larger NT epistles.” 


DATE OF GOSPELS 215 


narratives.* The former were occasional and immediate in 
character, the latter—Adya, διηγήσεις, aropvnpwovevuara—imply 
a rather more advanced epoch, when the early advent of Jesus 
was no longer a momentary expectation, and when his life had 
assumed greater importance and prominence. Nevertheless, by 
A.D. 50 at least, such notes and collections may have begun to 
exist in rough form. The current was, at any rate, setting un- 
mistakably in that direction. By the time of Paul’s later literary 
activity, written evangelic narratives were in existence here and 
there, especially within the primitive Palestinian churches. The 
primary need for these is to be found in the fact that a new 
generation was rising, who were dependent for their acquaintance 
with the history of Jesus upon a fast-diminishing company of 
eye-witnesses, in the rapid extension and consolidation of the 
Christian communities, and even in the mission activities of 
the Palestinian disciples.t To these impulses there must also 
be added another which sprang from them before long, namely, 
the need of translating the tradition from the original Aramaic 
vernacular into Greek. That attempts must have been soon 
made to meet such requirements is inherently probable, and it 
is corroborated by the surviving gospels. Even the earliest of 
them leaves no impression of tentativeness on the mind ; there 
is very little of that comparative lack of precision and definite 
outline which is often felt in the pioneers of any department in 
literature. They represent the midsummer, not the spring, of 
their literary cycle. The subject had been already—perhaps 
often—handled, even before Mark’s gospel took its present 
shape, although these earlier narratives, like the sources and 
authorities of Tacitus in the Aznales, have disappeared. Luke’s 
preface proves that our first three gospels are ‘first’ for us, 
not absolutely ‘first.’ They were the best, but they were 


* The collections of parables, stories, and sayings in the gospels find 
their nearest analogy, upon the other hand, in the midrashic literature of 
Palestinian Judaism. ‘* Die Evangelien, die wir besitzen, sind in griechischer 
Sprache bearbeitete Midrashim” (G. Klein, ZVW., 1904, 144 f., ‘Zur 
Erlauterung der Evglien aus Talmud und Midrasch’). Parts of them 
certainly are closer in form and spirit to midrashic pieces than to Epictetus 
or Plutarch. This is the burden of P. Fiebig’s pamphlet on ‘ Die Aufgaben 
der neutestamentlichen Forschung in der Gegenwart’ (1909, especially ΡΡ. 
10 f.). 

+ Cp. Heinrici, Der Litterarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften (1908), 
pp. 23 f., and Sanday in ZA’£. ii. 573 f. 


216 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


neither the only nor the earliest narratives. It is probable that 
the literature, of which they are the survivors, and which they 
seem to have speedily antiquated, began to rise as far back as 
the sixth decade; and, upon any reasonable criticism of the 
synoptists, their sources must have partially existed in written 
form by the opening of the seventh decade. ‘‘Mox etiam 
libros de Jesu compositos esse puto, vel in eosdem usus vel 
Theophilis (qui profecto multi fuerunt) destinatos, ut intra 
viginti fere annos a Christi excessu jam copia queedam talium 
librorum exstaret. Erat enim etas illa litterarum plena, 
novaque religio minime intra illiteratam plebem manebat” 
(Blass, Acta Ap. p. 5). There is evidence sufficient, at any 
rate, to prove that during the Pauline pericd, prior to the 
homilies and pastorals, the early church contained the 
embryonic phases of what eventually was shaped into the 
canonical gospels. 
The subsequent composition of the gospels, which wer 
contemporary with the later homilies, had the same ends of 
edification in view, and this helps to explain their structure and 
general characteristics. Euclides in the Zeatetus (143) describes 
the way in which he recorded the conversations between Socrates 
and Theatetus. On returning from Athens, he jotted down at 
once some notes of what Socrates had told him (ἐγραψάμην 
ὑπομνήματα), and subsequently wrote on from memory. Finally, 
whenever he re-visited Athens, he would ask Socrates about 
anything he had forgotten, and then make corrections in his 
manuscript. None of the synoptic gospels can claim any such 
direct relation to Jesus. The earliest of the sources upon which 
they draw were not composed till about twenty years after he 
died, and no one took down the words of Jesus during his life- 
time. Retentiveness of memory, however, and the needs of 
the Christian halacha in the churches, helped to carry many 
of these words through the preliminary period of oral tradition. 
But even when the earliest literary products rose, eg. Q and 
the Ur-Marcus, they were not biographical. Still less were the 
subsequent gospels.* None of them is the direct transcript of 
an apostle’s memories, even by another hand. Their genre is 
not that of biographies so much as of memoirs which were 
written ἐκ πιστέως εἰς πίστιν, in order to convey and apply 
certain Christian beliefs about the person of the Lord Jesus, the 
* Cp. Harnack, ‘die Evangelien’ (Preuss. Jahrb., 1904, cxv. pp. 209 f.) 


ΜΑΚΚ 217 


main literary! difference being that the gospels, unlike, ¢.g., the 
Memorabilia of Xenophon, preserve an impersonal tone. The 
writer does not come forward in the course of the narrative. 
Even in the case of the Third gospel, where tradition has done 
most, not only for the question of the authorship, but also for 
the personal traits and character of the author, the standpoint 
is hardly less objective than in its predecessors. This apparent 
absence of personal colouring points back to one cause. It is 
not due to the overmastering impression of the contents, nor 
even to the literary self-suppression which Aristotle praises in 
Homer. The authors’ names are not concealed as were those 
of the Gottes Freunde in the fourteenth century, lest pride of 
authorship should form a spiritual peril. These anonymous 
gospels? represent to a large extent the final shape given to 
collections of evangelic matter which had been previously 
composed by and for members belonging to the general body 
of the Christian societies. They are communal in spirit and 
shape—even Luke’s is; they resemble the pastorals and 
epistles in this, that they are a direct outcome of living inter- 
course and mutual service within the Christian communities. 
Παράδοσις and μαρτύριον are the two words that characterise 
their contents, for all the free handling of their materials and 
the creative pressure, naive and deliberate, of their tendencies. 


(B) MARK. 


LITERATURE.—(a) Editions (for the patristic and medizval, cp. Swete, pp. 
cxiv f.)—P. Poussin’s Catena (Rome, 1673); Elsner (Commentarius, 1773) 3 
Matthei’s Catena (Moscow, 1775); K. Fritzsche (Leipzig, 1830); Olshausen 
(1853, Eng. tr. 1863); J. A. Alexander ® (New York, 1863); Lange (1861, 
Eng. tr. 1866) ; Petter (London, 1861) ; A. Klostermann (1867) ; F. C. Cook 
(Speaker's Comm. 1878); E. H. Plumptre (Z//écott’s Com. 1879); P. Schanz 
(1881)* ; Fillion (Paris, 1883); T. M. Lindsay (Edin. n. d.); J. Morison, 
A Practical Commentary (Edin. 1889) ; Maclear (CG7. 1893) ; Knabenbauer 
(Paris, 1894); Tiefenthal (Miinster, 1894); E. P. Gould (/CC. 1896); 

1 Justin’s phrase (ἀπομνημονεύματα) for the gospels is the term used by 
Moiragenes for his work on Apollonius (Origen, c. Ce/s. vi. 41); on its 
applicability to the Christian gospels, ¢.g., see Usener’s Relig. Untersuchungen, 
i. 95 f.; Hirzel’s Der Dialog, i. 141 f., and above (p. 44f.). 

2 For some early difficulties (quod nec ab ipso scriptum constat nec ab 
eius apostolis, sed longo post tempore a quibusdam incerti nominis uiris) 
raised by this feature of the gospels, see the interesting correspondence of 
Augustine and Faustus (especially epp. xxxii., xxxiii.). 


Ζι8 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


B. Weiss (— Meyer®, t901); A. Menzies, 7he Earliest Gospel (1901)* | 
S. Ὁ. F. Salmond (CA. n. d.); Wellhausen (1903)* ; V. Rose (Paris, 1904) ; 
A. Merx, Dze Zuglien Markus u. Lukas (1905)'; ΝΥ. P. Drew (Boston, 1905) ; 
Du Buisson (London, 1906); Baljon (1906)*; E. Klostermann (V7BNT. 
1907); W. Kelly (ed. 1907); H. B. Swete* (1908)*; B. W. Bacon, 7.24 
Beginnings of Gospel Story (1909)* ; Wohlenberg (ZA™ 1910). 

(6) Studies (i.) general :—Saunier, Ueber die Quellen d. Euvgliums des 
Marcus (1825); Michelsen, Het Evangelie van Markus (1867); P. Rohr- 
bach, Der Schluss der Markusevglms, der Vier-Evglen Kanon und die 
kleinastatischen Presbyter (Berlin, 1894)*; Du Buisson, 7he Origin and 
Peculiar Characteristics of the Gospel of St. Mark (1896); Hadorn, ‘die 
Entstehung des Mk-Evglms auf Grund der syn. Vergleichung aufs neue 
untersucht’ (BAT, ii., 1898); 5. Ὁ. Ε΄ A. Salmond (DB. iii. 248-262) ; 
J. Weiss, das d/teste Euglm, ein Beitrag zum Verstandniss des Markus- 
Euglms und der Gltesten evang. Ueberlieferung™ ; (1903); Jiilicher (PRZ 
xii. 295 f.); K. F. A. Lincke, ‘Jesus in Kapernaum’ (Zz Versuch 
cur Erklirung des Markus-fvglms, 1904; dual account, historical and 
legendary, in 17-8); Loisy (RHZ., 1904, 513-527); E. Ὁ. Burton, Studies 
in Gospel of Mark (1904); A. S. Barnes (J/onthly Review, Sept. Oct. 
1904, /7S., 1905, 187 f., 356 f.); R. A. Hoffmann, Das Marcus-Evglm 
und seine Quellen (Konigsberg, 1904); B. Weiss, dze Geschichilichkett des 
Markus-Evgims (1905); E. Wendling, Ur-Markus, Versuch einer Wieder- 
herstellung der altest. Mitteilungen des Lebens Jesu (1905); A. Miiller, 
Geschichtskerne in den Evglien nach moderner Forschungen, 1905 [Con- 
servative reply to Wernle, Wrede, and J. Weiss]; H. Zimmermann, Der 
Hiistorischer Wert d. dlteste Ueberlieferung von der Geschichte Jesu im 
Marcus-Evglim (1905); A. J. Maclean (DCG, ii. 120-138)* ; E. Wendling, . 
Die Entstehung des Marcus-Euglms: Philologische Untersuchungen (1908) ; 
M. Goguel, L’évangile de Marc et ses rapports avec aux de Mathieu et de Luc 
(Paris, 1909) ; (ii.) on special points :—C. L. Reboul (Pau/ula, oder Einiges 
Wenige zur genauenen Erforschung d. Marcus-Evglm, Gotha, 1876); 
Bakhuyzen, van Manen, and Callenfels, Beoordeling van de conjecturen Mk. 
en Lk, (1885) ; Blass, ‘ Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Markus’ (B/7., 1899, 
3); W. Wrede, Des Messtasgeheimnis in der Evglien, Zugletch ein Beitrag 
zum Verstandnis des Marcus-Evglms (1901)* ; Spitta, ‘ Liicken im Markus- 
evangelium’ (Ure. iii. 2. 109-138); Burkitt, Gospel History and tts Trans- 
mission (1906), pp. 33-104; H. J. Holtzmann, 4A/V. x. 18-40, 161-200 
(‘Die Marcus-Controverse in ihrer heutigen Gestalt’)*, and B. W. Bacon 
(JBL., 1910, 41-60). 


§ 1. Outline.—The gospel! opens with a brief summary (11:18) 
of John the Baptist’s mission, introducing the baptism and tempta- 
tion of Jesus. Then begins the first of the two large sections of 
narrative, describing the Galilean (1/95) and the Judaan 
(10-13) ministry. ‘The former is divided into an account of the 

1On the score of the opening words, Blass (B/7. iii. 3, p. 52) denies 


that Mk, is a literary work atall, ‘‘The book is not a σύγγραμμα, but a 
ὑπόμνημα, ἐ.4. a Commentarius, like Cxsar’s Commentartt,.” 


MARK 219 


work in Eastern Galilee (1!4-7%8), of which Kapharnaum usually 
forms the headquarters, and a briefer description of work in 
Northern Galilee (724-95). Returning from the latter district to 
Kapharnaum (9*), Jesus then passes southward into Judea 
(10-13); and this section closes with his triumphal entry into 
Jerusalem (11127), his controversies with the local authorities 
(1127-1244), and his final message of doom and judgment on 
the city and nation (1.31.5). 

Mark’s gospel plunges at once tm medias res. No account of 
the birth either of John or of Jesus is furnished at the outset ; 
all we get is a brief and even meagre notice (11:13) of John’s 
ministry ἐν τῷ ἐρήμῳ and his baptism of Jesus, followed by a 
mention of the subsequent temptation of our Lord. The 
writer hurries on to depict the Galilean ministry. 

(a) No new section of the gospel is to be found at 8°, which is merely 
the prelude to 851: 9% 9%, 7.2. to the close of the Galilean ministry ; and 
the confession of Peter at Czesarea Philippi does not occupy in Mark the 
large and pivotal place which Mt. and Lk. both assign to it. (4) It is un- 
necessary to suppose that the writer has blurred (in 615) a vital crisis in the 
fortunes of Jesus, as though Herod’s hostility to Jesus, as to John (in 
Josephus), really drove him into a safe retirement (so Rauch, ZV/V., 1902, 
303-308; Wellhausen, 2 7711. 48 and on Mark 6°, and Loisy, i. 90). In this 
event, the evangelist would have obliterated the flight of Jesus before Herod. 
Rauch corroborates his view by adducing the Syriac text of Mk 6% which 
connects the ‘messengers’ with the disciples of John, the course of things 
being that Jesus and John’s adherents retired together (6°°9* 45), = But 
Mt.’s treatment of Mk. at this point (1412) is too artificial to be claimed asa 
witness to some more primitive tradition, and the general reconstruction is 
too hypothetical to be trustworthy. 

The second part of the gospel (10!1387) describes the 
Judean ministry, undertaken with the shadow of his death at 
Jerusalem resting upon his soul (9%). The route taken lies on 
the eastern side of the Jordan, and Jesus passes through Jericho 
to Bethany (1111). Hitherto he has only met the Jewish authori- 
ties defensively in controversy, but now he takes the initia- 
tive, following up his triumphal entry into the capital by driving 
the money-changers and traders out of the temple (111). 
Further controversy with the authorities follows (1127-122 
1218-17 | 218-27 7 228-87); then a prophetic prediction of the future 
(131-381) marks the close and climax of his public teaching. ‘The 
remaining part of the book narrates mainly the circumstances 
of his arrest, trial, crucifixion, and burial (14!-15*"), breaking 
off abruptly with an account of how two women, coming to 


220 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


anoint his corpse, found the tomb empty and saw an angel who 
bade them and the rest of the disciples return to Galilee: there 
shall you see him, as he told you (161), 


(a) The closing words are explained by Abbott (Dzat. 527 f.) from the 
misrendering of the Hebrew original, as though Mk.’s sazd nothing and Mt. 
and Lk.’s carried word to rest on a confusion between x} and ἣν such as is 
found in LXX of Jer 1813, while they feared (= Mt. and Lk.’s dehe/d) implies a 
similar and equally natural (cp. LXX Job 37%, Is 1612 etc.) confusion between 
xv and 1x7. This is plausible, but it is not the only possible explanation, 
and the other evidence for a Hebrew original is not cogent. 

(6) The chronological sequence of the gospel is better marked in its large 
sections than in details. The mission of John the Baptist is described 
without any note of its period (1“),* but it closed (114) before the mission of 
Jesus began. Even in what follows, apart from the reiterated εὐθύς and καί 
(sometimes both together), Mk.’s arrangement is neither consecutive nor 
coherent (cp. 6155) ; occasionally he dates a saying or incident on the Sabbath 
(12 2% 63), and twenty-four hourst cover 17-8, but the healing of the 
leper (1) is undated, the return to Kapharnaum takes place δι’ ἡμερῶν (21), 
and the succeeding incidents are narrated one after another without any 
attempt at chronological order, the rare notes of sequence being quite vague 
(e.g. ἐν ἐκείναις Tats ἡμέραις πάλιν κτὰλ., 8). How long the Galilean mission 
lasted, or the sudden visit to the territory of Tyre (7235), we are not told. 
The two exceptions are the transfiguration (six days after the previous con- 
versation, 92) and the passion-week (111), The various days of the latter are 
noted (14! 2 16!-?). Here the tradition evidently was fairly exact and 
precise (even to hours, 1555), and the same primitive quality attaches to the 
μετὰ ἡμέρας ἕξ of 9? (reproduced by Mt. but altered by Lk. into the vague 
ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ), which is probably equivalent to ‘one week,’ reckoned 
from Sabbath to Sabbath (cp. Keim, iv. 308). The tradition is too early and 
naive to render it likely that this chronology is artificial, due to the exigencies 
of public worship (O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. p. 344). 

§ 2. Analysis.—The abbreviated and cursory character of the 
prologue (118; cp. Bacon, /BZ., 1908, 84-106) as compared 
with the detailed fulness of the following passages in the gospel, 
has suggested three solutions. It has been held to point, (a) in 
common with other structural phenomena of the book, to the 
editing of an Ur-Marcus ; or (4) to Mark’s use of Ὁ, the common 
source of Matthew and Luke, which he generally abridges ; or 
(c) to Mark’s dependence upon either or both of these gospels 

* The ‘forty’ days of the temptation (11*"!8) is symbolic, as in Ac 13 (cp. 
DCG. ii. 250). 

+ Other little groups of a day’s doings, in (2727?) 41.851. 52% 6814. g3f 
111-11 χ115:19. 2. χ.41521. yolt 1610 

t The similar phrase in Job 20% (μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ) is more definite ; but 
in neither case is it necessary to think of the eight-day week of the Romar 
calendar (Mommsen, Rim. Chronologie?, p. 228). 


MARK 221 


(so especially Hilgenfeld and Badham). The first-named is 
decidedly superior to the other two theories, and is borne out by 
the subsequent traces of editorial revision throughout the gospel. 
No attempt (e.g. von Soden, J. Weiss) to disentangle the precise 
Petrine traditions or source is convincing,* but the work of the 
editor in combining Mark’s record with logia (e.g. in 98 1125 
and 13), in inserting summary links, and in re-arranging the 
materials, can be seen from 11:18 (16) onwards. “It is as though 
the type of Petrine narrative gospel had been already too firmly 
fixed to admit of radical re-casting, and the new material had 
been added in adaptation only, and for the most part in the form 
of memoriter interpolations and supplements” (Bacon, p. xxi). 


(2) The unrealities into which an ultra-literary criticism of the gospels slips 
are illustrated by the conflicting views taken of a passage like Mk 1118. It is 
as arbitrary to make Mt. and Lk. expansions of Mk. as to see in Mk. little 
more than an abbreviation of the large narrative in Q upon which Mt. and Lk. 
subsequently drew. (Q’s use of Mk. and Mk.’s use of Q (even in a primitive 
form) are equally superfluous here. Throughout the whole section one has 
the impression of a writer who is outlining rapidly a familiar story, in order to 
reach the point at which either his characteristic contribution or more probably 
the source before him first begins. There is no reason why the facts of 
11-13 (5) should have been only accessible in Q or in any other document. In 
that primitive Christian world even Q had no monopoly of such traditions ; 
and although Q were prior to Mk., there would not be the slightest necessity 
to postulate any documentary source from which the latter must have drawn 
the contents or even the form t of the summary in 1118, Spitta, who regards 
ἄρχη τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (υἱοῦ θεοῦ) as a title, further conjectures 
that about a page of the original autograph has been lost before 12, since 
καθὼς γέγραπται κτᾺ. cannot be supposed to introduce a sentence, much less 
a paragraph. This introductory page must have described the advent of the 
Baplist, together with the genealogy and birth of Jesus; but the reasons for 
this ‘ must’ are as slender as those for similar omissions between 18 and 17, in 
18, and at 37! (ZWVW., 1904, 305f. ; Ure. iii. 2, pp. 122-138). 

(ὁ) In the following section, which belonged to the Ur-Marcus, 1% is 
plainly proleptic. Markt dwells on the widespread impression made 
throughout Galilee by the expulsion of the unclean spirit; but even an 
immediate impression (εὐθύς) of this kind is not made in a few minutes, 
whereas he goes on in v.™ to describe what Jesus did after leaving the 


* On the other hand, it is hypercritical to reject not only the Petrine 
tradition preserved in Papias, but the possibility of finding any definite Petrine 
basis for the stories in Mk., as M. Briickner does (ZV W., 1907, 48f.). 

t In 115 it goes back to Test. Napht. 8: ὁ διάβολος φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, καὶ 
τὰ θηρία φοβηθήσονται ὑμᾶς, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἀνθέξονται ὑμᾶς. 

Φ 2.6. for convenience the composer of the gospel, as distinguished from 
the Mark of the Ur-Marcus. 


222 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


synagogue on that very day. 17!-88 certainly hangs together; the picture of 
a single day’s activity is a historical and literary unity. But 1%“, though 
evidently meant to follow 18 (as a specimen of the exorcisms there 
mentioned) in order to explain Christ’s avoidance of the cities (145), scarcely 
introduces 21%, which probably existed in the Ur-Marcus in a detached 
form.* 213: seems to echo 116, but the call of Levi is remembered 
principally for the sake of the famous reply of Jesus to the scribes of the 
Pharisees (21817), The following set of sayings upon fasting (28.233) are merely 
topically connected with the preceding context ; it is impossible to be sure 
that the order is consecutive, or even that both debates (or either) occurred at so 
early a period, for though both Mt. and Lk. emphasise the chronological order, 
this only proves that they had no other outline to fall back upon. The 
cycle of conflict-stories is then rounded off by two (27*°8 31°) which are set in 
very vague connections of time, while 238 seems hardly to have lain originally 
next 227. The encounter with the Pharisaic authorities, which naturally arose 
from the free observance of the Sabbath and the synagogue-ministry of Jesus 
(318), closes with an allusion to the Pharisees and Herodians ( 3°) which again 
is proleptic (cp. 12"). But the fact that Jesus had already raised the 
suspicions of the authorities explains the inquisitorial visits of the Jerusalem- 
scribes in 322 and 7. Meantime Mark adds a short general paragraph to sum 
up the increasing popularity of Jesus not merely in Galilee, but far beyond its 
confines (37")*). 

(c) This paragraph forms a transition between the opening section of the 
gospel {where it throws the popular enthusiasm into relief against the 
malevolent criticism of the authorities) and the following section (315-618) 
which begins by describing how Jesus began to provide for the future, in view 
of the demands and the dangers of the work, by organising his disciples. 
Twelve are chosen (3!%!*) to preach and to cast out demons, not to heal 
sicknesses—a function which Mark, unlike Matthew (10%) and Luke (9), 
reserves for Jesus himself.t But no mission is assigned them till the close of 
the section (655-11), and Mark again fills up his record with materials which are 
both vaguely located (cp. 3°) and loosely connected. The first of these is 
the defence of Jesus against a charge of insanity brought against him by the 
scribes from Jerusalem, whose interference is topically set in an account of 
a similar interference by his own family (37%). The lake-side teaching is 
then resumed (4}, cp. 218 315); but instead of describing as usual the effect, 
Mark now gives a specimen of its eontents (not necessarily borrowed from Q). 
What Jesus taught in the synagogues is not explicitly reported (but cp. 
Lk 427). On the other hand, a selection from the parables spoken to the 
open-air audiences is presented, containing three parables (42-3: es ae 
with a discussion of the parabolic method in general (4'°!) and an explana- 
tion of the first parable (4!*™). Interpolated between this and the second 
parable is a saying upon the Lamp, apropos of the duty of openness for 
a disciple (4). As his hearers, after v.1, are the disciples, it almost 
follows that vv.%-8? (cp. the αὐτοῖς of v.™), which presuppose the crowd, 


* The scribes and Pharisees do not pursue Jesus over the country ; they 
wait till he finishes a tour or journey (cp. 37% γ᾽" 81%), 
+ As a matter of fact, however, they do heal, when the time comes (632-18), 


MARK 223 


originally followed vv.!®. This cycle of sayings is now closely linked 
chronologically to a cycle of miraculous deeds (4*—-5%; cp. 41=4%, the 
second busy day’s proceedings narrated by Mark), depicting the power of 
Jesus over the forces of nature (4°°-#1), unclean spirits (5!-*°), sickness (525-54), 
and death (521-4 35-43), These incidents are closely and chronologically set. 
But his sceptical reception at Nazareth (6'®) is an erratic boulder,* like the 
subsequent account of the commission of the twelve, which took place during 
some preaching tour (6-1), 

(4) The fame of Jesus on this tour reaches the ears of Herod Antipas, 
whose conscience is troubled by the appearance of one whom he takes to be 
John the Baptist vedzvzvus (6%); but Mark has nothing to say of any 
precautions taken by Herod, or even of what Jesus said or did during the 
absence of the disciples. He simply proceeds to narrate a couple of mirackes 
(630-43. 45-52) which happened immediately after their return, and to note the 
unabated popularity of Jesus as a healer of diseases (658-85, Then follows 
a cluster of sayings on true purity as opposed to ceremonial, occasioned by 
a visit of the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem (71.385). No motive is 
assigned for the next move north into the Tyrian country (774%), and only 
one incident is recorded—the cure of a Syrophcenician woman’s daughter. + 
On the way back,t or possibly after his return, a deaf and dumb man is cured 
(7°!-87) ; but the incident is not fixed to any time or place. The next section 
(8!-26) not only opens vaguely (81), but contains material which is parallel to, 
or a duplicate of, 6°f-, viz. a miracle of feeding (8'-!°= 6521.) in an out-of-the- 
way spot, followed by an encounter with the Pharisees (81, cp. 715), and 
a cure (8%, cp. 7815), The characteristic traits of the sepzrate stories are 
probably due to oral tradition ; their agreements, which outweigh their differ- 
ences, seem to denote a common, single type; their juxtaposition is literary 
rather than the result of oral tradition. 

(e) The following fragment of teaching delivered on the way north to 
Cesarea Philippi marks a more private and tragic phase in the gospel 
(851); the fate of Jesus as the Christ implies a resolute renunciation and 
confession on the part of his disciples, to whom he now imparts special 
instruction. But as the term τὸν ὄχλον in 853 shows, 8*f does not belong to 
this particular cycle of teaching ; it is one of the intercalations of the editor 
who elsewhere (714) introduces a crowd (though not necessarily from Lk 1455). 
A certain roughness of arrangement or dislocation of the natural order is 
evident indeed in the whole of 8?7-9!°, where 8571: seems to be resumed § in 
9}}:}5 after the break of 95 ; but source and editor are not easily disentangled 


* Its position next to 6% is meant to bring out the contrast between 
Chiist’s rejection by his own people and the success of his disciples abroad. 

¢ Here only, by a foreigner, is Jesus called κύριος in Mk., and here only 
does the writer represent him as healing at a distance from the patient. 

1 Unless we are to suppose that Jesus took a long and apparently 
purposeless circular tour north and east and south, it is better, with 
Wellhausen, to regard Szdom as an erroneous rendering of j7’s (Saidan= 
Bethsaida) ; cp. 8% and Mt 1172, 

§ The suggestion that 911-18 should read 911" 150. 12s. 18 certainly clears up the 
passage, and is preferable to deleting 9'*”- 156 (Wernle) as a gloss. 


224 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


Bacon (A/7., 1898, pp. 541f., 1902, pp. 236f.) regards 977° as practically 
a duplicate of 877-9}, 94-18, which it interrupts with its vision-incident much 
as Ac 9-11! precedes 13-15; Loisy (RAR., 1904, pp. 386f., 1907, p. 446) 
assigns $7-80 gl- 11-18 to a primitive separate source; and Schweitzer (Das 
Abendmahl, ii. 58 f.) puts 884-οὔϑ back into the Bethsaida-period (651-56), On 
Wellhausen’s arbitrary characterisation of 87-10 (Zin/. 81 f.) as a reflection 
of the later Christian consciousness, cp. Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 
181 . 

The twofold apologetic motive of the transfiguration-story is fairly obvious : 
viz. to meet the objection raised by the Elijah-tradition (cp. Justin, Dza/. 49), 
and to explain how the crucified Jesus could be the Christ of God. The 
former is emphasised by Mark ; the latter is specially brought out by Mt. 
and Luke. It has been conjectured that the transfiguration* originally 
represented an appearance of Jesus six days after death (Wellhausen on 
Mk 9} ‘ vielleicht der alteste in den Evangelien,’ cp. Loisy, Zvang. Syn. ii. 
39-40) to the disciples in Galilee (Mt 281°) ; but though Peter is prominent 
here (9° cp. 829), this is hardly enough by itself to prove that the vision tallies 
with that of 1 Co 155. On the other hand, in 2 P 115 18 the prophetic 
announcement by Jesus of Peter’s death (cp. Jn 2118) is followed by an 
allusion to the vision and voice on the holy mountain which (Hofmann, cp. 
Spitta’s monograph, pp. 89 f.) might refer to a post-resurrection vision like this, 
as is plainly the case in 7he Apocalypse of Peter (§§ 2f.), where the twelve on 
a mountain with the risen Lord see two departed saints in radiant form 
ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ κυρίου. 

(7) The account of the transfiguration (92.135) is followed by the expulsion 
of an evil spirit from a boy (915. 3), the last miracle in Galilee thus belonging 
to the same class as the first (1%). The closing paragraph on the Galilean 
mission consists of some fragments from the private conversation of Jesus 
and his disciples (9%), which the editor has inserted without any close links. 
Jesus is no longer preaching or healing ; his whole attention is concentrated 
on the inner circle of his adherents. 9°*7 seems rather isolated, especially if 
the curious v.® (calling the twelve, when he was already with them !), which 
is partly omitted by D, is taken as an editorial link between 83:39 and 
%-37 (Wellhausen). 9°*® certainly belonged originally to another site; its 
present position is due to the topical mention of the Name (937: 33), and 9 
is the most natural sequel, at any rate, to 957, In 9*® the discourse ap- 
parently becomes still more disconnected and obscure, but the closing note 
(9°°) is on the same key as the opening (9***>). 

(g) The final departure of Jesus from Galilee (10'-?) marks the beginning 
of the Judzan ministry (10-13). The details of this are scanty and vague 
until he reaches Jerusalem, when the record becomes suddenly richer. 
Thus the discussion with the Pharisees on divorce (103,13) apparently occurs 
in the open-air (cp. v.'°), but the setting of the incident is ambiguous. 
Two incidents of travel follow (1018-16 17-81), after which the narrative becomes 
vivid (10%), though the request of James and John (10 3545) comes abruptly 


* O. Schmiedel (Hauptprobleme α΄. Leben-Jesu-Forschung?, 81 f.) postulates 
a similar origin for the synoptic stories of the feeding of the 5000 and the 
walking on the sea (Mk 6°'* etc.) 


ΜΑΚΚ 225 


after what precedes.* The cure of the blind beggar outside Jericho (10%-*”) 
was evidently a fixed point in the primitive tradition; it is the only cure 
wrought by Jesus outside Galilee, and it marks, by the beggar’s acclamation 
of Jesus as the Son of David, the opening stage of his messianic entry into the 
capital (1111), The site of the subsequent dialogues and discourses is 
the temple (cp. 11"), where he spends the day but not the night; his 
headquarters are at Bethany (1111 3). The cleansing of the temple 
(1175-18) is inserted in the symbolic story of the blighted fig-tree (1113.1.. 20). 
to which Mark has, as usual, attached several disparate sayings (117+), In 
a series of encounters, Jesus silences and outwits the official parties one after 
another. The climax of these is the admission of a scribe ¢ that Jesus is a 
true teacher (12°), whereupon Jesus takes the initiative (12%) by attacking 
the teaching and conduct (12**-) of the scribes, to the delight of the people. 
Since 10“ Jesus has been teaching not his disciples but the public; in 13}-*, 
however, which forms the close of the Judzan ministry and the climax of 
his relations with the temple, the editor, by using the small apocalypse, 
represents him as instructing the inner circle of his disciples privately upon 
the future destruction of the temple and the prospects of his own cause. 

(4) The story of the Passion now begins (14), the account of the 
treachery of Judas being interrupted by. that of the anointing at Bethany 
(143-*), and followed by that of the celebration of the passover (142%). 
While 14176 jis rejected as unhistorical by critics like Brandt and 
Wellhausen, it is deleted by Spitta (Ure. i. 266f.) on grounds that are 
hardly more solid than those on which Rauch (ZNVW., 1902, 308-314) bases 
his theory that 1417!" forms a later gloss, intended to make the meal a 
passover-supper. Only when νυν. 1216 are omitted, does the absence of 
els Ιεροσόλυμα in v.17 seem suspicious (cp. v.'®), as though the supper had 
been perhaps eaten at Bethany (so, ¢.g., Wendling). 14!* 36 is not an 
unhistorical duplicate of 1118, and there is nothing in the style of the passage 
to warrant any suspicion of later editorial handling. O. Holtzmann (Leden 
Jesu, ch. xiii.), who places Jn 7-8" before Mk 12%, regards Christ’s 
verdict on this woman as an incident at the beginning of the Monday when 
he ate the passover evening meal with his disciples, and argues that as 
neither Jesus nor his disciples can have been busy with preparations for that 
meal, the elimination of Mk 1415:16 would involve the loss of any tradition 
relating to the earlier part of that day,—a loss which would be incredible, 
since the disciples were far from likely to forget the last day they spent in the 
company of their Master. This is subtle, but not untrue to the history or 
psychology of the situation. For the theory that the time-references in 
Mark’s story of the passion-week were not in the Ur-Marcus, cp. J. Weiss 
(DCG. ii. 323-324); for detailed criticism of the trial-stories, see Moffatt, 
DCG. ii. 749-759. 


§ 3. Structure.—This survey (i.) shows that, while the general 
acheme is clear, Mark’s arrangement of materials is often topical 


* Here 10‘ is secondary, as compared with the Lucan version (2235. 7), 

t Neither 12% nor even 1218-37 jis closely related to this period, and 
probably Lk. (10%%) is right in placing the former at an earlier phase of the 
ministry. 


15 


226 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


rather than historical. Sayings and incidents are grouped in a way 
which suggests not so much chronological sequence as similarity 
of subject-matter. Hence the criticism of Papias is justified, if it 
referred to order. Compared with the Fourth gospel, whose 
carefully marked sequences were familiar and popular in Asia 
Minor in the opening of the second century, the narrative of 
Mark would appear irregular. In the second place (ii.), Mark’s 
gospel is plainly a composition, not in the sense in which Mt. and Ὁ 
Lk. are, but still in a noticeable degree of its own. It is not an 
artless transcript of oral reminiscences. The author has had 
before him various materials, not only oral but also written 
sources, which he has occasionally re-arranged.* The narratives 
betray unevenness at certain points; gaps and breaks occur, and 
more than one current of opinion or tradition may be detected. 
The problem of literary criticism which results from these data 
is, whether there is adequate evidence to prove that more than 
one hand need be traced in the composition of the gospel, or 
whether such editorial manipulation as can be unbared may not 
have been the work of John Mark himself, to whom the first 
draft of the Petrine reminiscences was due. There are two 
a priori reasons for hesitation in attempting an analysis of Mark 
into an original edition which has been revised or amplified by 
a later writer. (a) We cannot assume that what appear to be 
secondary elements were not already present to some extent in 
the Petrine tradition which formed the basis of the original 
gospel; by the time that Mark took down the reminiscences of 
Peter there was ample time for the oral tradition of the primitive 
churches to have filled out some of the sayings of our Lord, and 
for elements of reflection and distortion to have creptin. (8) 
The uniformity of language, both in style and vocabulary con- 
stitutes a second reason ; but, although Wendling has driven the 
linguistic and stylistic argument to the verge of unreality, there 
are nevertheless traces of strata, and such uniformity as may 
be found is as likely to be the work of the final editor. These 

* «Dans une ceuvre aussi peu littéraire, le défaut de cohésion n’est pas 
une preuve de rédaction multiple. Mais l’incoherence qu’on pourrait appeler 
positive, le désaccord entre les morceaux juxtaposés qui proctdent de 
courants d’idées trés différents, l’accumulation de données disparates qui se 
laissent reconstituer en groupes homogénes, caractérisés chacun par une 
inspiration distincte, les doubles emplois peuvent attester, ici comme ailleurs, 


la combinaison des traditions ou des sources écrites et la complexité du travail 
redactionnel” (Loisy, i. 85-86). 


ΜΑΚΚ 227 


reasons, therefore, suggest hesitation not in the acceptance but 
in the working out of the hypothesis that the canonical Mark, 
written shortly after a.D. 70, is based for the most part on 
Mark’s draft of the Petrine reminiscences. 


The hypothesis that our canonical Mark represents the later edition o1 
an earlier document, or that it can be analysed into two or more different 
sources, may be based either upon considerations drawn from the internal 
structure of the gospel itself (so, e.g., P. Ewald, Wendling, Wellhausen), or from 
a comparison of its contents with those of Mt. and Luke (so, ¢.g., J. Weiss, 
Réville, von Soden). It has undergone various vicissitudes. Advocated 
formerly by Holtzmann, it was worked out by Schenkel, Weiffenbach, 
Wittichen and others, especially by Sevin, Jacobsen, and Mangold. 
Weizsicker then pushed the analysis of Mk. still further, and more recent 
attempts at a pre-canonical source or sources are to be seen in the essays of 
Beyschlag (SX., 1881, pp. 565f.), Feine (/P7:, 1886-1888), and J. Weiss 
(SA., 1890, pp. 555f., 1891, pp. 289f.). One motive which actuated some 
of these critics was the desire to reconstruct the original Mark of Papias ; 
but, independently of this, others have worked out a series of secondary 
features, Pauline or apostolic, which have overlaid the primitive materials of 
the Petrine story (cp. recently Schmiedel in Z4z. 1844f.). Thus Wendling 
actually traces two different sources, in addition to an editor, throughout the 
gospel. Μ', an Aramaic source, represents the primitive, realistic impres- 
sion of Jesus the teacher, conveyed by Peter, This was translated into 
Greek by M? with poetical and artistic additions of his own to bring out the 
supernatural powers of Jesus the divine messiah, the Son of Man who makes 
a mystery of his person. Finally, a redactor (=Ev), whose dogmatic interests 
overrode his historical sense, inserted some passages (e.g. 1! 35f- 22 etc.) 
and edited others (e.g. 88% 1113. 1% and 12%*44), But this, apart from the 
lack of sufficient criteria in style, implies too rigid and a@ frior7 a conception 
of the developments of primitive Christology. Even an incidental allusion 
like that of 1% shows that Jesus was more than a teacher in the earliest source, 
and many of Wendling’s special results are too subjective and dogmatic to 
command assent (cp. Menzies, Review of Theology and Philosophy, ii. pp 3-6). 
The over-elaboration of the theory will be seen from the following outline :— 


ΜΙ Ι 16-34a 35-398 0-4 gi-lba 16b-17. 

M2 141. 

Εν ι 8 140-16 wb 890 a gidb. léa. 18a 
ΜΙ 2180. 19a u_38 20-21 B1_4d 26-29 38 

M?2 

Ev 219b-20 pete 22-80 420-3 30-32 84 


ΜΞ 435-54 450 614 17-29 35-44 
Ev 5 61-13 15-16 30-31 45. 836 


Ἐν 8 9υ-ϑϑ  Ὠ 880-8ὺ 88 οἱ 9-18 28-50 107-18 PY) 


228 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


ΜΙ 1021-828 85-37 41-44 wll 


M? 10%6_1 110 
Ev 1078-80 82b-34 38-40 45 111-14 18-25. we 


M'1 10. 1.14. 140-31 840-81 tet 38-29 83-36 1411 


Εν 1214Ὁ 32-B4a 8-27 30-33 7 14-8 


M2 I 415. 26-358 86-87 δ89-416 a 47 51-56 60-628 
Ev I 42 85b 88 410 57-59 


M?2 I 5* 0-43 I 56-167" 8 


R. A. Hoffmann’s scheme postulates two Aramaic editions of Mk., one 
written by Mark for Jewish Christians and used by Mt., the other (a larger 
and longer work) employed by the canonical Mk. and Lk. In this way the 
occasional superiority of Mt. to the others is explained, but the agreements of 
all three are left in the dark (cp. Schmiedel, ZC., 1904, 154f.), and the 
theory of an Aramaic original for Mk. is not convincing. 

Wendling’s analysis is rivalled, in point of elaboration, by Bacon’s recent 
theory that R, the final editor, who was an anti-Jewish Paulinist, used not only 
Q (chiefly in the Lucan recension) and P (the primitive Petrine tradition, as 


outlined in Ac 10°7-38) but X (an unknown source). R’s hand appears in 1% ὅδ: 
24-28. 840 219b-20, 27-28 36, 20-21 88:84, BO. p1-21, 37 (1-8, 5-6. 16-29. 45. 52b. 55 73-4. 8 18 810, 
13. 16-21 οὔ. 12b. 80-82. 41, BO y ols 12. 82-84, Alt. 716. 17 (). 18 1.212. 1.334. 10. 2411. y 48-9. 151. 26. 28, 
41. δδί. 752-5 but he also edited Q in 1% % 12-18 10:15 25b-10. 16-16. 18-190 31-5, 8-19, 22-26, 
42:8. 1-12. 21-25 680-81. 68-55 71. δι 14-17, 20-28, 81-87 811-12, 14-16 (), 221. 580-34 οὐ. 40, 42. 481. () 
δ0 1019-11. 28f. y 19-10, 12-14, 20-21 y 91-11. 88-40 7 29. 147. 28f. 7, 4174. () 7540-1 and P in 4951: 
614-15 911-155. 18-17. 19f, 241. 89-85 χρή. (N) 1 114. 11. 19, 371. 7 4%. 851. δὲ 1 «1. δι. 39 as well 
as X in 149-4 37 886-87 () 936. 88-99 yo18-16. Mf, 1 28-37 «164. 351. 844. 451. There are 
more or less complete fragments of P in 116-8 29-S4a. 85-89 21-5. Meld (419) 
522-88. 88:48. 7241. 6) 819 (). 7-20 gl 1 11δή. 1.218. 1{. 10-11. 22f, νυ, 484. 65. 7573, of X in 
18. 9-11 217. 21-26 49-10. 18-20 G4 (ἡ. 92-45 (). 46-528 76-7 (49. γρ 5:9 (ἢ. 17-28. Bt. γ.218{. 411. 
1313 1427 152) 88. 88, and of Q in 425-82 δ) 64 (). 7-18 79-13 586: 8 g2-5 7-10. 18. 28 022-28, 
It is obvious that this analysis reduces P to a minimum and raises R to a 
maximum; the criteria for distinguishing Q and X are rarely cogent, and 
a large amount of matter assigned to either, as well as to R, might well be 
grouped under P. 


Solger’s (Ure. 64 f.) *Ur-Marcus” consists of 14 21-9 28-28 31-26. Si-m 
4119. 19-27, 86:41 51-7. 9.48 61-18, 80 71-2, δ:14, 16-95 GI-17, 21-90, 82-85, 98 g17-B0. 88:87 γ 0} -8ι, 


40-62 711-24. 27-98 y 91-9, 12-44 7.21-ϑι 11-22, 24-90, 92-37 y 412-18, 16-22. 96, 82. 84-85, 40, 50-89. δῦ, 
60-64 1 Ge 22. 25-28. 80-32, 34. 37. 89, 42-46 composed SAND; 38 by John Mark (cp. 
Ac 123). Both Scholten and Jacobsen had already advocated this view of the 
authorship of the source, which is also held by A, Miiller (the source being 


MARK 229 


Aramaic), and which is much nearer to the data of the gospel and of the 
primitive tradition than any of the analyses just noticed,” or than that of a 
critic like J. Weiss, who holds rigidly that the Ur-Marcus contained little or 
nothing which cannot be found in Mt. and Lk., and in whose hands this 
primitive source loses its graphic colouring and circumstantial detail, since most 
of the salient features of the canonical Mark are ascribed to the redactor. 


The difficulty of determining what is primary and what is 
secondary is illustrated, ¢.g., by such a minor linguistic point as 
the use of the semi-proverbial formula, ke who has ears (to hear) 
let him hear (cp. HS. 106-107). This denotes a pregnant 
reminder to the reader or hearer; but it may quite well have 
been used by Jesus (e.g. in Mk 4% 23) in some of the connections 
preserved in the gospels. The Joh. apocalypse’s use of it (27 etc. 
13°) is hardly normative, and the call to note a deeper sense in 
the adjoining context is not to be referred exclusively to the age of 
the Epigoni, when the sayings of Jesus were becoming the subject 
of devout allegorising (so M. Dibelius in SX., 1910, 461-471). 

(a2) The opening paragraph (1!) starts two special problems : 
one upon the meaning of 1! (ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
υἱοῦ θεοῦ), and one upon the relation of the OT citation in 128 
to the rest of the context. The former passage is the title of 
the prologue. In v.4 the writer begins his narrative proper of 
the life of Jesus with the remark that Jesus came into Galilee 
preaching τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ. The different sense of 
εὐαγγέλιον in v.1—where the words Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are not 
subjective (so Zahn), as if it were the gospel which Jesus 
preached, but objective—indicates a conscious play upon the 
term. The ἀρχή of the Christian dispensation lay in the 
prophetic mission of John, who summed up the previous order 
of things (cp. Mt 11%) and prepared the way for the new. 
Hence the twofold citation in 17%, The editor in v.? explains 
how the ἀρχή was not Jesus himself but some one else, the 
divinely predicted forerunner (= ἐγένετο ᾿Ιωάννης κτλ.), while in 
v.3 he explains how the very sphere of the forerunner’s mission 
had also been prophesied (= ἐν τῷ ἐρήμῳ, v.*). 

Although ἀρχή here is not equivalent to szmma rez (so Herklotz in 3Ζ., 
1904, pp. 77 f., 1905, pp. 408 f.), it might be a misrendering of the zczpit 


* P. Ewald (Das Hauptproblem der Evglienfrage und der Weg zu seiner 
Losung, 1890, pp. 178f.) gives the redactor little more than 1)? 174876 
16-9; du Buisson assigns him a few linguistic changes (6... in 13), one or 
two details, and some context supplements (¢.g. in 215 16 18 6% 719 81 οὗ 
1077 12)5 31. 28 1415)" 


230 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


prefixed to Mark when the gospels were written in one manuscript (so 
Nestle in A.xf.4 x. 458-460; Hzn/. pp. 130f., Eng. tr. 163; Phzlol. Sacra, 
pp. 45-46); the heading of the book would thus become the opening of the 
text. But if ἀρχή is an unparalleled opening for an early Christian writing, 
καθώς (especially introducing a quotation) is equally abnormal. None of 
the cases quoted in ACL. i. 996 is really analogous at all points to Mk 
11-2, and, as it seems clumsy and contrary to Mark’s style to connect v.’ with 
v.4 grammatically, the alternative is to regard the OT citation as due to 
an editorial hand, whereas, in the original, v.1 was the heading or descrip- 
tion either of the opening section or of the whole book. In the latter case, 
the object of the gospel would be to portray the start and origin (cp. Ac 1}, 
He 23, Jn 157) of the gospel of Jesus in his lifetime on earth (so Zahn, 
Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, p. 240). This would gain in 
likelihood if one accepted the hypothesis (see below) that Mark wrote another 
treatise (which underlies the opening chapter of Acts) to describe the progress 
and advance of the gospel whose opening his first book had depicted. 
But in view of the precariousness of this theory, it is safer to confine 
the scope of v.2 to the opening section of the gospel itself. Otherwise, 
ἀρχή κτλ. might be taken with ἐγένετο in v.‘, the intervening verses being 
a lengthy parenthesis (so, ¢g., Hilgenfeld, ZWT7., 1906, 196-199, and 
Goguel, of. cit. 36)—a hypothesis which Chajes utilises in favour of his 
Semitic * original for the gospel by conjecturing that ἀρχή is really a 
misinterpretation of ΠΩ τε ΟΡ (πρίν), though Halévy prefers to think of ndna 
(cp. Hos 12 LXX). But such Semitic hypotheses f are generally precarious, 
and, in this instance, they are superfluous. 

The awkwardness of the whole passage, whether ?7* is taken as a 
parenthesis or }* as an anacolouthon, suggests irresistibly that the OT 
references at least are inserted by an editorial hand from some book of 
florilegia (p. 24). Some primitive disturbance or corruption of the original 
text is almost certain, and, as no evidence is to be found in MSS, it occurred 
probably in the process of editing the Ur-Marcus. Deleting "Ὁ (ἰδοῦ ἐγώ. . . 
σοῦ), Weiffenbach opens what he considers to be a ‘‘ beautiful and grand 
portal to the gospel” (JP7., 1882, 668-680 ; similarly Soltau, Zixe Liicke, pp. 


* Hebrew. W. C. Allen similarly falls back on an Aramaic original, 
regarding the prophetic references, together with the mistranslation, as the 
work of the Greek translator. Wellhausen ( 271], 53-57) even pushes his 
revised edition of the Ur-Marcus earlier than its translation into Greek. 

Ὁ That Mark is the translation of an Aramaic original is held, ¢.g., by 
H. P. Chajes (A/arkus Studien, 1889), Halévy (RS., 1900, 115-149), 
W. C. Allen (-7., 1902, 328-332; Κα. i. 436-443), Blass (Phzlology of 
Gospels, 190-218), R. A. Hoffmann, Zimmermann (SX., 1903, 287 f.), and 
Wellhausen (ind. 14f., 43 [). Zimmermann’s (.SA., 1901, 415-458) 
analysis makes all three synoptists (Mark before A.D. 66) translate AQ, 
the primitive Aramaic gospel ; while neither Mt. nor Lk. used Mk., Lk. had 
access to a special source (LQ); but his birth story is drawn from AQ in 
order to counteract Mt.’s legendary narrative (see below), and his resurrec- 
tion cycle of stories is based on another special source (Semitic) extending 
into Acts, 


MARK 231 


{-7, and Holtzmann in AC.) ; but it is better, with Lachmann (SK., 1830, 
p. 844), P. Ewald, Weizsacker, Scholten, Wellhausen, and others, to take *8 
as an editorial gloss. Spitta (ZVW., 1904, 305-308), who rightly takes v.} 
as the title (cp. J. Weiss, das alteste Ezgln, pp. 24 f.), regards *4+3 as 
the original of the opening passage ; but he complicates this by declaring 
that some previous introductory narrative must have lain in the original text 
(see above, p. 221). 


If the fusion of the citations is not due to Mark himself, 
it is probable that he was indebted for it to a ffortleeium of 
messianic proof-texts which was circulated among the churches, 
for the benefit of those who were exposed to controversy with 
the Jews. The Malachi-citation, grouped under Isaiah in Mk 
12, occurred in a subsequent passage of Q (Mt 11!°=Lk 727) 
which is absent from Mark’s narrative. If Mt. and Lk. had Mk. 
173 before them, they probably preferred the more correct 
situation of Mk 12, But even if they had not, it would be un- 
necessary to fall back on either of the three hypotheses just 
mentioned, as though Mk. or the editor of the Ur-Marcus 
deliberately fused together the separate citations which he found 
in Q or in Mt. and Lk. 


The other OT reminiscences are scanty and unimportant; for the most 
part they are conformed to the LXX (cp. ΝΥ. C. Allen, £7. xii. 187-189). 


(ὁ) The position of the conflict-section in Mk 21-36 suggests 
doubts of its chronological setting. The uniform colour of the 
fivesmeidents) (201201517 18-22" 25:25. 31-5) fhe notice of a, plot Οἵ 
the Herodians and Pharisees against his life at this early stage 
(3°), the proleptic occurrence of the messianic* Son of Man 
(cp. 829 88f), and the general unlikelihood of such an immediate 
and rapid succession of encounters—these considerations point to 
the antedating of the incidents in question, or at least to the 
fact that some of them (excluding the call of Levi, 214), like 314, 
have been drawn into this early group through the influence of 
associations. ‘The probability is that they belonged to a special 
source incorporated either by Mark or by the final editor at this 
pointt (so Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i. 23 f.; Baldensperger, Dalman, 

* It cannot weil be equivalent to the generic dar masha in 219, any more 
than in 2%, Lk 228, Mt 10% 26%, That Jesus used it as a non-messianic 
self-designation is over-subtle ; neither here nor elsewhere is it possible ta 
explain the title as an equivalent for man (the man), the first person singular, 
or some one (cp. Mt 11”). Even the alternative, that Jesus used it as an 
incognito, to provoke thought, is unsatisfactory (ep. Abbott’s Dzat. 3152 f.), 

+ The source is resumcd at 121 (cp. Wendt, pp. 25f.). 


232 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


etc.). Similarly 322° is misplaced from after 723 (the Jerusalemite 
scribes do not appear on the scene till after 71), and the 
editorial hand appears in 4619 (Wellhausen, Wendling). 

(c) In passages like 41:8. (cp. LBi. 1866-1867) 9% and 13, 
the impression of editorial work upon a source, not simply on 
oral tradition, deepens; ¢.g. 4!% is secondary to its context 
(cp. J. Weiss and Wendling), which lies more level to 21-3, 
Without carrying the analysis further, we may therefore outline 
the process by which Mk.’s gospel reached its present form, thus: 
notes of Peter’s reminiscences written down by Mark ἡ (hence 
the Aramaic colouring and vivid detail of certain sections) were 
afterwards edited by a (Roman?) Christian who used not only 
the small apocalypse but some other logia of Jesus (not 
necessarily Q). The gospel is not a gospel of Peter, but it 
contains a cycle of traditions for which Peter is the authority 
and in which he plays a prominent role. The first person 
mentioned in the narrative of Christ’s mission (1147) is Simon ; 
his call (11%) is followed ere long (12%) by the cure of his 
mother-in-law. Simon καὶ of per’ αὐτοῦ (1°) form the inner circle 
(cp. 92 38 145%) of the first disciples (215); he is named first in 
the list of the twelve (316); he first hails Jesus openly as the 
Christ (87°), and is evidently the leader and spokesman of the 
twelve (838. τοῦδ 112! καὶ ἀναμνησθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος λέγει αὐτῷ, 147 
167), though now and then speaking (1439) and acting (1457) 
impetuously for himself (cp. 1454). One slight feature, which 
emphasises not only the prominence of Peter but the leading 
position next him of the sons of Zebedee, is the way in which 
the latter, after 11°29, are mentioned between Simon and his 
less famous brother Andrew (cp. 3! 133 with 92% 10%5f 1433f), 
The connection of the Ur-Marcus with Peter accounts for the 


* The inaccuracies of Mk 7 upon Jewish purifications also show that the 
source here has been edited by some Gentile Christian, who, unlike Peter and 
John Mark, was unfamiliar with local religious customs (cp. Biichler in 7. 
XXi. 34-40). 

+ Cp. above, pp. 190f. Salmon’s verdict (Human Element in Gospels, 21) 
sums up the case moderately, “1 do not believe that St. Peter had any 
share in the composition of St. Mark’s gospel, or that he was in any way 
responsible for its contents. But I consider that critical study would lead 
us to believe that some of the evangelist’s statements were derived directly or 
indirectly from that apostle, and therefore I would not hastily reject the 
tradition that there had been personal intercourse between the two.” 

t Mt. (21”) generaliges this into ol μαθηταί. 


MARK 233 


historical nucleus at the bottom of the Marcan stories. Several 
of the latter are more than circumstantial; they reveal the 
man who was there. The secondary features of the gospel are 
adequately accounted for by the process of editing, which has 
left the gospel something very different from the naive tran- 
script of an eye-witness’s reminiscences, even when the latter had 
passed into the form of preaching material πρὸς τὰς χρεῖας. 


Scattered throughout the book are editorial touches due partly to 
catechetical influences, such as the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (+ υἱοῦ θεοῦ ?) 
to εὐαγγελίου (11), of * καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ to meravoetre (11°), of 
καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου in 835 (as in 10%), of ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστέ (9%) and μετὰ διωγμῶν 
in 10°, the incidental description of the twelve as afos¢/es (630), the observa- 
tions in 6 (cp. πωρώσις in Eph 48) and 1357, reflections of the apostolic age, 
as, é.g., in the description of John’s baptism (14, cp. Ac 258), editorial glosses 
like καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα (7.3, showing how the author viewed the 
Antioch controversy in the apostolic church), and other additions which are 
either marginal glosses, or insertions of an early copist, καὶ ἄρον τὸν κράβαττόν 
gov (2°), τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ (271), τὸν ἐσχηκότα τὸν λεγιῶνα (55), ὁ γὰρ 
καιρὸς οὐκ ἣν σύκων (1133, so Bakhuyzen, Baljon, Wernle, and others), μὴ 
καταλιπὼν σπέρμα (127), τοῦ ᾿Τησοῦ (14°), καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν (145), etc. 
Even the repeated εὐθύς does not necessarily belong to the Ur-Marcus ; in 
several places textual criticism indicates that it was inserted subsequent to 
the use of the Ur-Marcus by Mt. and Luke.f 


§ 3. Religious Characteristics.—The primary aim of Jesus, 
according to Mk., was to proclaim the good news of the 
kingdom (114 κηρύσσων), at first by teaching in the synogogues 
(121), What aroused wonder and admiration was the powerful 
and authoritative character of his words. ‘This at once involved 
him in encounters with unclean spirits; the new teacher became 
inevitably the exorcist (124), while another side of his mission 
was that of healing the sick. Mark brings out, in his first chapter, 
how what Jesus conceived to be his proper mission, viz. preaching 
(188 cis τοῦτο yap ἐξῆλθον, referring to his divine commission, not 
to the house of v.%, which he had left not to preach but to 
pray), was handicapped { by his very popularity as an exorciser 

* On the secondary character of Mk. here, as compared with Mt. and Lk., 
cp. J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu?, p. 69. The gospel of God was an expression 
first popularised, if not coined, by Paul, so far as we know (cp. Resch, 
Paulinismus, p. 380). 

+ Cp. Weiss’ exhaustive study in ZVW. (1910, 124-133) ; he finds εὐθύς 
certainly original in 118: 42 212 4117 5# 10 14” probably original in 4° 6° 5°. 

t Hence the more difficult reading ὀργισθείς (13) of D a ff? as a com- 


plement to the ἐμβριμησάμενος of 1%, not an echo of it, is preferable to the 
smoother σπλαγχνισθείς, which was probably introduced for motives af 


234 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


and healer (cp. 145). To Mark, Jesus is above all things the 
preacher and teacher, in Galilee (2218 41-2886 626 with rol), 
where his true work is interrupted by appeals for cures which 
his compassion could not refuse. 


The emphasis laid by Mark (cp. Dzat. 3624-3625) on the power exerted by 
Jesus over evil spirits, denotes an early Christian tendency or tradition which 
found evidence for his messianic claims in this sphere of authority. What 
the eschatological messiah had been expected by some circles to accomplish, 
that Jesus had done—and more. The first experience of Jesus, after his 
endowment with the messianic spirit, is a prolonged conflict with Satan, 
in which he is supported or surrounded by an angelic retinue (11°18), The 
results of this encounter are at once visible, Jesus exorcises the evil spirits 
(13-27. 4), They repeatedly own his authority (cp. 3"), but he refuses to 
accept their wild witness. His popularity (37) and unpopularity (37) 
alike are attributed to this power; the most heinous sin is that of attributing 
it to a trafficking with the evil spirits themselves (37%), Satan or 
Beelzebub with his realm of demons is set over against the divine realm in- 
augurated by Jesus. It is not, however, correct to argue * that the exorcising 
of demons by Jesus forms an important feature in the synoptic use of the term 
‘Son of Man.” So faras Mk. is concerned, this term is never connected with 
the expulsion of evil spirits (cp. 279: 38), It is as God’s Son (cp. 1), the holy 
one of God (1%, cp. 37%), the Son of the most high God (57), that Jesus 
of Nazara casts demons out of men. Consequently, while the Marcan 
(and indeed the synoptic) accounts of demon-expulsion must be read in the 
light of contemporary superstitions (cp. W. O. E. Oesterley in DCG. i. 
440-443), they cannot be regarded as imaginative illustrations of an element 
in messianic prophecy. Whatever be their historical nucleus, these naive 
popular traditions derive from a definite set of apostolic reminiscences. f 
Thus, even though the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ in 1! are a gloss, they are a correct 
gloss. The unclean spirits hail their exorciser as the Son of God (34, cp. 57) ; 
Jesus is God’s Son (111, cp. 13°") from first to last, and the last testimony 
paid him is this unconscious homage from a pagan’s lips (1589). 


But, while the valuation of Jesus as the Christ is the deter- 
mining factor of any gospel, critics like Kostlin, Keim, M. 
Schulze (ZWT., 1894, pp. 332 f.) and Wrede (pp. 71 f.) go to 
uncritical extremes in exaggerating the superhuman, mysterious, 
and even metaphysical traits of the Marcan Jesus at the expense 
of the human element. Mark does note ¢he spirit of Jesus more 


reverence (cp. Nestle’s Phtlolog. Sacra, 26, and Einf. 219-220, Eng. tr. p. 
262). Rauch(ZVW., 1902, 300-303) is one-sided in regarding 1 43 and 
1“ (ὅρα. . . εἴπῃς) as editorial glosses introduced to glorify Jesus. 

* As Volz does ( Jiidische Eschatologie, p. 215). 

+ To this position Wrede was driven back (cp. ZVW., 1904, 169-177) 
by critics of his brilliant but one-sided AZesstasgehetmnis; he admitted that the 
Marcan interpretation was rooted ultimately in actual occurrences of exorcism 
(e.g. in 1%" 51) as the soil of the later schematism. 


MARK 235 


than once (15 119 where Lk.’s τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον is probably 
more correct, 2% 812), but there is no tendency to represent 
this in any dogmatic form as a sheer supernatural force, any 
more than to ignore or depreciate the limitations of his super- 
natural power and knowledge (cp. 1333). Upon the contrary, it 
was the frank recognition of these human limitations which led 
both Mt. and Lk. to modify several of the Marcan sayings (cp. 
eg. 184 with Mt 8!6 and Lk 4*, 32! with Mt 124? and Lk 8%). 
If the Jesus of Mk. is not a humanitarian rabbi or sympathetic 
prophet, he is still less the pictorial representation of a divine 
energy in history. 

Although it is no longer possible to argue, with the Tiibingen 
theorists (eg. Holsten, Die Synopt. Evglien, 1885, pp. 179 f.), 
that Mk.’s gospel was composed by a Paulinist in order to 
justify the preaching of the Pauline gospel in opposition to the 
Petrine manifesto of Mt., much less that it was designed to be 
a counterblast to the Apocalypse of John (Volkmar), there 
are traits (cp. eg. r15=Gal 44, 41012--. Co 142% Ro ols 
1016-21, 888-- Ro 116 o?8=2 Co 37—-4°) which serve as water- 
marks of an age when elements of the Pauline gospel had had 
time to affect the writer’s environment. The specifically Pauline 
elements in Mk. are discussed especially by von Soden (Z/A. 
143 f., 150 ἢ), Titius (7254 325 f.), W. Briickner (PAZ, 1900, 
426 f.), Menzies (Zhe Larliest Gospel, 1901, 38 f.), J. Weiss (Das 
alteste Evglm, 42 f.), and Bacon (Beginnings of Gospel Story, 
pp. xxvii f., xxxiv f.). The last-named scholar attributes the 
radical Paulinism of the book to its redactor, but there is no 
conscious or radical ‘ Paulinism’ in Mk. The gospel has traces 
of the apostolic age; both in language and spirit it reflects 
naturally its environment, and the Pauline gospel had entered 
into that environment. But Mark was not a Paulinist.* His 
emphasis on the proof from miracles and his theory of the 
resurrection-appearances diverge from Paul; Paul never uses 
the favourite Marcan title of the Son of Man; and Mark’s 
christology has interests to which Paul was indifferent. The 
theory of the parables in 41°12 betrays the influence of views 


* “© Auf alle Fiille gehort es in den paulinischen Kreis hinein, womit doch 
keineswegs gesagt ist, dass sein Verfasser als ein paulinischer Christ, sei es 
auch nur in dem sehr bedingten Sinne, wie solches ja von vielen neutesta- 
mentlichen Schriftstellern gilt, zu betrachten sei” (Holtzmann, ARW, x. 40 ; 
cp. Bousset, 7ZZ., 1904, 682), 


236 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


such as Paul urged in 1 Co 147-22 and Ro 915.39 rol6-21 1110; 
in spite of the considerations which may be urged to the con- 
trary (cp. eg. P. Fiebig’s A/tjiidische Gleichnisse und die Gletch- 
nisse Jesu, 1904, 146 f.; Knoke, WKZ, 1905, 137-164; P. 
Lagrange in RB., 1910, pp. 5-25; and Feine, Jesu Christus und 
Paulus, 135-149), it is not easy to deny that these words, in their 
present form, bear the impress of the Pauline theory of Israel’s 
rejection (cp. Jiilicher’s Gleichnisreden Jesu, i. 120-148), and 10% 
is generally reckoned as another instance. But the challenging 
logia of 227-28 715f and 1232-34 the avoidance of νόμος, and the 
universalism of 1117 and 131° (cp. 14°) are primitive Christian, 
not specifically Pauline, and it is to make a tether out of a hair 
when the story of 9*%°9 and the refusal of the request of the 
sons of Zebedee are supposed to be inserted in Paul’s interests, 
or when references to the cross and suffering are attributed to 
Paulinism (as if the latter monopolised these in the primitive 
church), or when a saying like that of 1488 is run back to 
the Pauline category of the flesh and the spirit. On the 
other hand, some of the allegorical or symbolical touches, 
e.g., in the story of the fig-tree and in 1538, are significantly 
Pauline. 

§ 4. Origin.—That the gospel, in its present form, was intended 
for an audience outside Palestine is plain not only from Mk.’s 
omission of much Jewish detail that is preserved in the ordinary 
synoptic tradition, but from his careful explanations of customs 
(e.g. 734 1 1542), phrases (541 784), and names (¢.g. 317 τοῦδ) which 
would be unfamiliar to Christians of Gentile birth throughout 
the empire. The fact that the gospel was written in Greek does 
not, of course, invalidate the hypothesis that it was written in or 
for the Roman church, since Greek was widely known at this 
period (cp. Caspari’s Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, iti. 267 f.), 
but the occasional Latinisms merely prove at most that the 
writer was in touch with the Latin language.* The wide range 
of the Empire made this possible in many countries of the East, 
and no linguistic feature of this kind can be assumed to have 
any local significance. The presence of such Romanised forms 
might even be held to corroborate the ancient tradition that 
Mark was connected with Alexandria; in the κοίνη of Egypt, 
where the civilisation and culture of Rome spread so widely 

* On the NT ‘Latinisms,’ see Ilahin’s Rom und Romanismus im gricck. 
vom. Osten (1906), 257 ἴ. 


MARK 237 


during the first century * B.c., many Latin terms may still be 
traced, including military terms 7 like λεγιών and κεντυρίων (cp. 
P. Meyer’s Heerwesen, pp. 131 f.). But the Latinisms belong to 
Mk.’s colloquial style, and, beyond the vague inferences which 
may be drawn from his connection with Peter and the latter’s 
connection with Rome, there is no evidence, internal or ex- 
ternal, to suggest the church for which, or the place at which, 
the gospel was composed. Even if the Rufus of 15?! were the 
Rufus of Ro 16}, this would not necessarily point to a Roman 
circle (see above, p. 137), and the bearing of 71:28 (things clean 
and unclean) is too general to be confined to the Roman church 
(Romy He 13°). 

§ 5. Sty/e.—Mark has no special style; his book has not the 
Biblical tinge of Mt. nor the literary art of Luke; it is written 
usually (cp. J. B. Pease, /BZ., 1897, 1-16) in terse, vivid Greek, 
of a popular and even a colloquial order (cp. the use of terms 
like κράββατος and σφύρις) ; the occasional looseness of construc- 
tion and roughness of phrasing is due to a vigorous emphasis 
(e.g. in 222 72 82 1191-32 7 333-34), ‘This accounts in part for some of 
his idiosyncrasies, such as his fondness for double negatives (e.g. 
144 22 327 53 1114 etc.), and diminutives like θυγάτριον, ἰχθύδια, 
κοράσιον, κυνάριον, παιδίον (παιδία), παιδίσκη, πλοιάριον, ψιχία, and 
ὠτάριον ; his predilection for εὐθύς, πάλιν, and πολλά (adverbial) ; 
his addiction to the historic present—a mark of the anecdotist— 
and καί in narrative connections. ‘The so-called Aramaisms are 
sometimes not real Aramaisms (e.g. the double δύο); when 
sifted, they prove an Aramaic background for the tradition, not 
an Aramaic document which has been translated, nor even a 
cast of style which can be described as particularly Hebraistic. 

But, while Mark as a whole is shorter than Mt. or Luke, in 
his descriptions he is frequently elaborate and ample. Many 
of what may be termed his “extra-touches” are, no doubt, due 
to his vivid and circumstantial imagination, possibly working 
upon the oral reminiscences of Peter and others ; but more than 
once his narrative has a redundant and even heavy form which 


* The papyri show the later spread of the Latin element (cp. Wessely’s 
paper on ‘die latein. Elemente in der Grazitat der agypt. Papyrusur- 
kunden,’ Wiener Studien, 1902, pp. 99-151). 

+ Mk.’s explanation of Greek terms by Latin (12 1516) is perhaps the 
one exception which turns the scale in favour of a church whose members 
knew Latin. 


238 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


Mt. and Luke, with larger books to write, have carefully avoided. 
Salient instances of this may be seen, e.g., in 1° (ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης 
ὅτε ἔδυσεν ὃ ἥλιος), Where Mt. omits ὅτε κτλ. (816) and Lk. ὀψίας δὲ 
γενομένης (429); in 1480 (σήμερον ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτῇῦ, where Mt. omits 
(2033) and Lk. retains alone (2233) σήμερον ; in passages like 2% 
(= Mt 128, Lk 6°) and 144 (= Mt 264’, Lk 22"), where Mt. and 
Lk. agree in omitting the same clause or phrase in a Marcan 
duplicate expression, and elsewhere (cp. the collection of material 
in AS. 110-113). This pleonastic method of composition is 
frequent enough in Mk. to be regarded as a predominant feature. 
He loves to linger over details, and to bring out clearly and 
profusely the mse ex scone, or the feelings of Jesus and his circle. 
More than once, indeed, his account of some incident is actually 
longer than the corresponding narrative or narratives in Mt. and 
Lk. (cp. Menzies, 7he Larliest Gospel, pp. 34f.); after 117% the 
tendency generally is to be less compressed. 

§ 6. The Conclusion (16°?°).—The gospel breaks off abruptly 
at 168, in the middle of a sentence, like the first edition of Sidney’s 
Arcadia. The words ἐφοβοῦντο yap might indeed be taken, like 
ἦν yap μέγας σφόδρα (164), as merely a stylistic negligence ; but 
even so it is not possible, in spite of all that can be urged to 
the contrary (e.g. by P. W. Schmidt, Gesch. Jesu, 1904, p. 49; 
Wellhausen, and B. Weiss),* to imagine that the author intended 
his book to end thus. (i.) That he was prevented by some 
emergency from finishing it, is possible. (ii.) That he did finish 
it, although the conclusion was lost or suppressed, is not less 
probable. (i.) The former hypothesis in one form (Zahn, GA. 
ii. g28f.) accounts for the circulation of copies lacking 169° by 
assuming that Peter’s death prevented Mark from completing the 
volume at once, and that, before he could do so, copies of it were 
made by some of his friends. There is a partial parallel in the 
literary fortunes of the notes written by Arrian of the lectures 
of Epictetus, which, like the first edition of the Religio Medict, 
were at first published surreptitiously, or at least without the 
connivance of the author. Otherwise, accident or death may be 
held to have prevented the author from ever finishing his treatise. 
(ii.) The original conclusion may also have perished, how 


* Jacoby (V7 Zthzk, 1899, 413) argues that though the close is accidental, 
it ‘“‘admirably reflects the feeling which fills the evangelist as he stands 
before Jesus. Jesus is to him the sacred mystery of humanity,” with hw 
power over damons, ete. 


MARK 239 


ever, not by the accidental mutilation of the autograph, but 
because it was suppressed soon after the gospel was written. 
The possibility of this is not to be denied on @ priori grounds. 
The gospel was short; it lacked the special features of Mt. and 
Lk., in which the bulk of it had been incorporated, and its slow 
circulation in the sub-apostolic age, reflecting its initial literary 
fortunes (cp. Burkitt, Zwo Lectures on the Gospels, pp. 32f.), 
serves to explain how all trace of the original conclusion perished. 
At one time there must have been practically only a single copy 
in existence, and that mzzus the closing leaf. A plausible reason 
for its removal (Rohrbach) was that it gave, like the lost 
(suppressed δὲ part of the Gospel of Peter, a Galilean account of 
the Resurrection-appearances which did not tally with the 
Asiatic traditions of the Elders, who favoured Luke (cp. Lk 248 
with Mk 168) and John, or else (Réville) that it was too brief 
and unconventional to suit the needs of the later church. The 
compilation of the canon (especially and primarily of the four 
gospels) then led to the addition of 169° with its generalised and 
conventional statement of the resurrection-appearances. 


In a region where nearly every step is a surmise, this is as plausible as 
any hypothesis yet offered, but it leaves two questions open: (a) What of 
the original conclusion? Can any trace of it be discovered? (6) And what 
of the later second-century supplement or appendix (169-29) 

(z) Obviously the Marcan epilogue included an appearance of Jesus to 
Peter (so Paul and Luke), probably in Galilee (cp. Melzer, PAZ, 1902, 147- 
156)—which suggests a connection between it and the Gospel of Peter. More 
detailed reconstructions (cp. T. 5. Rérdam, 4/7., 1905, 769-790) are pre- 
carious, though we may fall back provisionally,* with Blair (Apostolic Gospel, 
372-385), on Lk 24% 1-19, and, with E. J. Goodspeed (4/7., 1905, 484-490 ; 
cp. W. C. Allen, /CC. 302f.),t on Mt 28°? (or rather on Mt 287-10. 16-20), 
than which, as Mt. usually enlarges his sources, the Marcan appendix can 
hardly have been longer. Goodspeed’s version of the supposed original is as 
follows: And behold Jesus met them, saying, Hail. And they came and took 
hold of his feet and worshipped him. Then satth Jesus to them, Be not 
afraid, go, tell my brethren to depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me. 
And the eleven disciples went into Galilee unto the mountain where Jesus 
had appointed them. And Jesus came to them, and when they saw him they 
worshipped him, but some doubted. And he spake unto them, saying, All 
authority hath been given unto me in heaven and upon earth. Go ye there- 
fore and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things 
whatsocver I have commanded you. And lo, 1am with you alway, even unte 


* The objections are noticed by K. Lake, The Resurrection of Jesus 
Christ (1907), 81f., and Rordam (pp. 770f.). 
ἡ Cp. Wright, V7 Prodlems, 122 f. 


240 THE HISTCRICAL LITERATURE 


the end of the world. Yn this case, the loss of the ending would more 
probably be accidental than deliberate. 

(4) It is no longer necessary * to spend time in leading the cumulative and 
overwhelming proof from textual criticism (Tischendorfs M7. i. 403-407 3 
WH. ii. 28-51 ; Zahn, GX. ii. 910-938), stylistic considerations (cp. Swete, 
xcvif.), and internal contents, that this condensed and secondary fragment 
was not the Marcan conclusion of the gospel. But this negative certainty 
does not lead to many positive results upon its character, date, or authorship. 
It is just possible that it originally existed in independent form before it was 
incorporated in its present place, like the Homeric catalogue of the troops in 
Iliad, 2-8, or that it represents the close of some narrative of the resurrec- 
tion, based upon inferior tradition, the opening of which has been irretrievably 
lost. Attempts have also been made, but unsuccessfully, to connect it with 
the Teaching or Preaching of Peter (Zahn, GX. i. 922 π. ; von Dobschiitz, 
TU. xi. 1. 75-79). Probably the clue to its origin is to be sought in the 
opening decades of the second century, when, according to Rohrbach’s 
theory, the gospel was furnished with its unauthentic conclusion by those who 
edited the first canon of the gospels, and when the appendix was added to 
the Fourth gospel. There is no adequate evidence for Rohrbach’s idea (so 
H. Schmidt, SX., 1907, 489-513) that Mk 16% is used in Jn 21, but 
otherwise his reconstruction fits in with the main data of the problem. 

This process is assumed by Rohrbach to have taken place in Asia Minor.t 
Now, the volume of expositions or illustrations of Christ’s words which 
Papias compiled (Eus. . £. iii. 39. 8f.) during the first part of the second 
century, contained many traditions and διηγήσεις of the Lord’s sayings 
handed down by Aristion, among them apparently a story of Justus surnamed 
Barsabas (Ac 1**4) having drunk some deadly poison with impunity. This 
would tally with Mk 1618 excellently. Furthermore, an Aristo(n) of Pella is 
known (Eus. 4. 25. iv. 6. 3) to have lived and written after A.D. 135, whom 
Resch (7U. x. 2. 449-456; Z7hSt. 109-110; Paulinismus, 395-398) takes 
to have edited (¢. A.D. 140) the first canon of the gospels,—the archetype of 
Codex Beze,—and whom Hilgenfeld (ZW7., 1883, 13, 1894, 627) openly 
identifies with the Aristion of Papias. "ἀρίστων is certainly the more 
common form of ’Apiorlwy, and both are apt to be confused; but Eusebius 


* All that can, together with a good deal that cannot, be said on its behalf 
may be seen by the curious in Burgon’s well-known and incisive treatise (7he 
Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark, 1871) and in The 
Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (1896), pp. 298. Belser still (Zzn/. 
100 f.) holds that it was added by Mark (ε. A.D. 63-64) to the original gospel 
which he wrote about twenty years earlier, while J. P. van Kasteren (AZ., 
1902, 240f.) makes Mark add it after the appearance of Lk.’s gospel, and 
Hilgenfeld singularly maintains the authenticity of the passage. Further 
discussions in DZ. iii. 252-3, and HN7Z. 550-555. 

+ Even if Mk 16'° were held to be reflected in Hermas (Szm. ix. 25. 1-2), 
this would not imply necessarily that Mk 16* emanated also from the 
Roman church (so Stanton, GHD. i. 45-46), for it could easily have 
reached Rome from Asia Minor, and would naturally do so, under the 
circumstances, 


MARK 241 


plainly regarded the disciple and the Jewish Christian historian as different 
persons, so that we are thrown back upon conjectures. Conybeare’s dis- 
covery of a tenth-century Armenian codex with (᾿Αριστῶνος πρεσβυτέρου) 
‘from the presbyter Aristo” opposite Mk 16% between vv.®® (Zx.4 viii. 
241 f.; Exp.> ii. 401 f.), seemed at first to clear up matters, by revealing a 
tradition (trustworthy though late) which viewed the passage as a διηγήσις 
(Lk 1) of Aristion the Lord’s disciple. Aristion’s contributions to Papias 
were oral, it is true ; no written memoranda are mentioned by Fusebius. But 
he may have been an author as well as John the presbyter, and he may have 
written a brief narrative of Jesus and the apostles (16% seems to open out 
into a record like that of Ac 1), for διήγησις in Lk 11 covers a written source 
as well as an oral. ‘It may be further remarked that if Aristion was a 
disciple of the Lord, or even a fellow and companion of the apostles, he was 
probably an inhabitant of Palestine ; and this agrees well with the patristic 
statement already noticed [Victor of Antioch] that the ancient Palestinian copy 
of Mark included these twelve verses.” Conybeare’s conjecture * has been 
widely accepted, ¢.g. by Harnack, Nestle, Swete, Lisco (in Vincula Sanc- 
torum), Eck (Preuss. Jahrb., 1898, pp. 42-43, as by Theologus in the same 
journal for 1897, p. 227), Mader (B8Z., 1905, 269f.), Rohrbach, Sanday 
(DB. ii. 638-639), and Chapman (Revue Bénéd., 1905, 50f.). But it is’ not 
certain whether Aristo of Pella, who wrote an account of Judza’s revolt 
against Hadrian, is the same as the Christian elder Aristion who formed one 
of Papias’ sources of information (27. 2. iii. 39), or even whether the former 
wrote 7he Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus. His period is almost too late to 
permit of him being called a disciple of the Lord. Furthermore, Aristion is 
not definitely called ‘the presbyter’ by Papias or Eusebius, though this 
objection is perhaps not serious. The possibility of the Armenian gloss 
being an error must, of course, be admitted ; but some valid account of how 
the error arose is necessary, and to suppose it was due to the Armenian scribe 
- confusing Aristion or Ariston with Moses of Chorene’s Ariston, the secretary 
of Bishop Mark (?) in Jerusalem after A.D. 135, seems hazardous, despite 
Prof. Bacon’s ingenious arguments (Z£x.° xii. 4οι ἢ ; DCG. i. 114-118). 
The Armenian historian’s evidence is not enough to prove that he knew 
about Ariston independently of Eusebius. Upon the whole, then, while 
Conybeare’s theory cannot be said to have furnished the final solution of the 
problem, it offers a not unimportant hint upon the composition of this passage. t 
If Aristion was not its author, he may have been its source or one of its sources 
(for 16'*18 perhaps). At any rate, the passage appears to have existed 


* Cp. Ehrhard, ACL. i. pp. 115 f., and Zahn’s Forschungen, vi. 219 f. 
The criticisms of Resch and Zahn, which substantially favour Conybeare’s 
main contention, are reproduced in 2.x.‘ x. 219-232. 

+ The secondary as well as legendary character of the passage is obvious 
(vv.*1! reflecting Lk 8? + John 20!) νν. 3.18 being an echo of Lk 243", 
vv.17-18 of Ac 2118 2886, and vv.” of Lk 245951, Ac 1911), Besides the 
reference (ν. 17) to the glossolalia, cp. vv.!7!9 = 1 Ti 3}, v.45 = Col 1%, v,16> = 
2 Th 2!%, v.17 = Ac 1638, and v.% = Heb 24‘—evidence which is, of course, far 
from justifying the thesis of H. H. Evans’ monograph, S¢. Patel the Author of 
the Last Twelve Verses of the Second Gospel (1886). 


16 


242 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


originally in a longer and larger form, to judge from Jerome’s (c. Pée/ag. ii. 153 
cp. Harnack, 7U. xii. 1, and Zahn’s Forschungen, vi. 219) quotation of a 
passage which lay between v.’4 and ν. δ, This quotation has been recently 
corroborated by the discovery of a new papyrus. Jerome’s words are: /n 
guibusdam exemplaribus et maxime in Gracts codicibus tuxta Marcum in fine 
etus euangelit scribitur: ‘postea guum accuburssent undecim, apparuit ets 
Jesus et exprobauit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his, qui 
uiderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt, et tlli satisfactebant dicentes: 
saculum istud inigquitatis et incredulitatis sub satana est, qui non sinit per 
immundos spiritus ueram det apprehendi uirtutem ; tdcirco tam nunc reuela 
tustitiam tuam.’ Rohrbach (pp. 20 f.) attempted to reconstruct the Greek 
original of this passage, but it has now been discovered in the so-called Freer- 
logion (cp. Sanders, δε]. World, 1908, 138-142; E. J. Goodspeed, zdzd. 
218-226, with the critique of C. R. Gregory, das Freer-Logion, 1908) of an 
uncial (fifth century) manuscript of the gospels which, between Mk 16'* and 
16, runs thus :---κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελογοῦντο λέγοντες" ὅτι ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος τῆς ἀνομίας 
καὶ τῆς ἀπιστίας ὑπὸ τὸν Σατανᾶν ἐστιν ὁ μὴ ἐῶν τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν πνευμάτων» 
ἀκάθαρτα τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ καταλαβέσθαι δύναμιν" διὰ τοῦτο ἀποκάλυψον 
σοῦ τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἤδη. ἐκεῖνοι ἔλεγον τῷ Χριστῷ. καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκείνοις 
προσέλεγεν᾽ ὅτε πεπλήρωται ὁ ὅρος τῶν ἔτων τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ἀλλὰ 
ἐγγίζει ἄλλα δεινά" καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτησάντων ἐγὼ παρεδόθην εἰς θάνατον, 
ἵνα ὑποστρέψωσιν εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ μηκέτι ἁμαρτήσωσιν, ἵνα τὴν ἐν τῷ 
οὐρανῷ πνευματικὴν καὶ ἄφθαρτον τῆς δικαιοσύνης δόξαν κληρονομήσωσιν. ἀλλὸ 
πορευθέντες κτλ. 


In the light of this, it becomes probable that the source from 
which Mk 16%? was taken was some early apocryphal gospel; 
that the passage was not written (cp. Warfield, Zextual Crit. of 
NT, 199f.) for its present position, and that when it was 
borrowed, it was not borrowed in complete form. At an early 
date, however, some sentences which had originally lain between 
1614 and 1615 were transcribed on the margin of at least one 
Greek codex of the gospel, and eventually found their way into 
the text. Jerome quotes a part of them; the Freer-logion 
preserves the whole of the excerpt. It is still an open question 
whether the passage is or is not allied to the Palestinian 
presbyter-traditions, which are preserved by Papias (so Harnack, 
TLZ., 1908, 168-170). The terminus ad quem for its date is 
about the second quarter of the second century ; for, while echoes 
of the passage can hardly be heard in Clem. Rom. and 
Barnabas (so Dr. C. Taylor, however, in Zxf.4 viii. 71-80), 
much less in Hebrews (van Kasteren), it was known to Tatian 
and the Acta Pilati, if not to Justin Martyr (Afo/. i. 45), and a 
Syriac version may be postulated by 4 a.p. 150 (Chase, Syriao 
Element in Codex Beza, 150-157). 


MATTHEW 243 


(C) MATTHEW. 


LiTERATURE.—(a) Editions—Luther (1538); W. Musculus (J# Evangel. 
tstam Matthaeum Commentarit . .. digestt, etc. (1548); Ferus (Annota- 
tiones, 1577); Danzus (1583); Jansenius (Leyden, 1589); Alphonse 
Avendafio (Commentaria in Ev. D, Matt., Madrid, 1592-3); Maldonatus 
(1596); Kirstenius (ote in 77. Evangelium, 1610); Pareus (1641); J. B. 
Lightfoot (Hore Hebraica, 1658) ; J. Gerhard (Annotatzones, 1663); Elsner 
(Commentarius, ed. Stosch, 1767) ; De Beausobre et Lenfant (4 ew version 
of the gospel acc. to St. Matthew, with Comm. on all the difficult passages, Eng. 
tr. 1779, Cambridge, U.S.A.); Wakefield (1781); Aloys Gratz, Avrz¢isch- 
histor. Commentar (1821-1823) ; Fritzsche (1826); J. E. K. Kauffer (1827) ; 
Glockler (Frankfort, 1835) ; de Wette? (1838); Baumgarten-Crusius (ed. 
Otto, 1844); Peter Schegg (1856-8); M. Arnoldi (Trier, 1856); T. J. 
Conant (New York, 1860); J. A. Alexander (New York, 1861); Lange? 
(1868, Eng. tr., Schaff, 1864); R. F. Grau (1876); Wickelhaus (ed. Zahn, 
1876); Meyer® (1876, Eng. tr., Edin. 1877); J. L. Sommer (1877); Keil 
(Leipzig, 1877); Fillion (1878); Mansel (Speaker’s Comm. 1878) ; Schanz 
(1879); J. A. Broadus (New York, 1887); Kiibel (1889); J. Morison 
(London, 1890); Knabenbauer’s Commentartus (Paris, 1892) ; Carr (CGT. 
1894); J. Niglutsch (Brevis Comment. in usum clericorum, 1896) ; Nosgen? 
(1897); Zhe gospel of Jesus according to S. Matthew as interpreted to R. L. 
Harrison by the light of the godly experience of Sri Pardnanda (London, 
1898) ; B. Weiss (— Meyer’, 1898) ; Baljon, Commentaar op het Euglie van 
Mt. (1900)* ; Slater (CB. 1901); Blass, Hughium sec. Mattheum cum varia 
lectionts delectu (1901) ; Zockler (Lange’s Bzbel-Werk®, 1902) ; A. Merx, Dze 
vier kan. Evglien nach thr. alt, bekannte Texte. Matthaus (1902, Syriac 
version, tr. and annotated)* ; V. Rose (Paris, 1904); Wellhausen (1904)* ; 
Zahn? (ZX. 1905)*; C. A. Witz-Oberlin (ed. 1905, Stuttgart); J. Weiss? 
(SVT. 1906); ΝΥ. C. Allen (JCC. 1907)*; E. E. Anderson (Edinburgh, 
(1909); E. Klostermann and Gressmann (HBT. 1909); Plummer? (1910). 

(4) Studies—Besides such patristic studies as the commentaries of Origen, 
Hilary, and Jerome, Augustine’s Questiones, Chrysostom’s Homilies (ed. 
Field, Cambridge, 1839), Theophylact’s Commentary (ed. W. G. Humphrey, 
Cambridge), Peter of Laodicea’s (cp. Heinrici’s Beztrage, v., 1908), Poussin’s 
Catena (Toulouse, 1646), and the Venerable Bede’s edition (ed. 1647), 
reference may be made to F. G. Mayer (Beztrage zur Erklarung des Ev. Mt., 
1818); Klener, Recentiores guastiones de authentia evang. M. (1832); 
Schneckenburger, Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evuglms (1834); G. C. A. 
Harless, de compositione evang. quod 77. tribuitur (Erlangen, 1842) ; Delitzsch, 
Untersuchungen tiber die Entstehung u. Anlage des Mt. Evglms (1853) ; 
J. 5. Knowles, Zhe gospel attributed to S. Matthew the record of the whole 
original apostlehood (1855); C. Luthardt, de composttione Ev. M. (1861) ; 
A. Réville, é¢udes critiques sur PEv. selon S. Matthieu (Leyden, 1862) ; 
Ibbeken, Das Leben Jesu nach der Darstellung des Mattheus (1866) ; 
Lutteroth, Essai dinterprétation de quelques parties de ’évang. selon S. Mt. 
(1876); Barhebrzeus (Scho/éa, ed. Spanuth, 1879) ; B. Weiss, das Matthaus 
Evglm und seine Lucas-parallelen erklirt (Halle, 1876)"; Renan, v. chs. 
x. xi. ; Massebieau, Examen des citations de lancien Testament dans [ évangils 


244 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


selon Matthieu (Paris, 1885); Gla, Dze Original Sprache des Mt. Evglms (1887, 
Aramaic) ; F. Gardiner (/BZ., 1890, 1-16, Mt. wrote discourses in Aramaic, 
had them tr. into Gk., and added Gk. narrative); Kiibel (8262. World, 
1893, 194 f., 263 f., ‘Fundamental Thought and Purpose of Matthew’) ; 
T. Naville, Essaz sur Tévangzle selon S. Matthieu (Lausanne, 1893) ; 
Harman (JBZ., 1895, 114-124; ‘The Judaism of the First Gospel’) ; 
A. B. Bruce, With Open Face (1896), pp. 1-24; Jiilicher (PRE. xii. 428- 
439); Haussleiter, ‘Probleme des Matthiius-Evglms’ (B/7., 1900, vi., on 
virgin-birth and Lord’s prayer specially); V. Bartlet (DZ. 1. 296-305); 
Blass, ‘ Text-kritische Bemerkungen zu Matthius’ (B/'T. iv. 4); Pfleiderer, 
Ure. ii. 301-395; A. S. Barnes ( 77.5., 1905, 187-203); A. Carr (2.2.7, 
1907, 339-349, ‘Authenticity and Originality of First gospel’); Burkitt, 
Gospel History and its Transmission, pp. 184 f.; W. C. Allen (DCG. ii. 
143-150) ; Hawkins (4.5. 154-178); Ὁ. H. Miiller, de Bergpredigt im Lichte 
a. Strophentheorie (1908). 

§ 1. Plan and outline:—It is essential, at the outset, to feel 
the massive unity of this book, if any justice is to be done to it 
either from the literary or from the religious standpoint. Jesus 
the true messiah, born and trained under the Jewish law, and 
yet Lord of a church whose inward faith, organisation, procedure, 
and world-wide scope transcended the legal limitations of 
Judaism—this is the dominant conception of Matthew’s gospel 
from beginning to end. The book is compiled from at least 
two sources, and their different nuances are more than once 
unmistakable; but these discrepancies and variations do not 
blur the final impression made by the writer’s clear-cut purpose 
(cp. Renan, v. pp. 209 f.). He wishes to show that, in spite of 
the contemporary rupture between Judaism and Christianity, 
there has been a divine continuity realised in the origin and 
issues of faith in Jesus as the Christ. (a) Zhou shalt call his 
name Jesus: for he shall save his People from thetr sins. That 
People is no longer Israel (cp. 214%), but a wider community. 
(ὁ) A greater than the temple is here, one who is also (c) the 
promulgator of a new Law which transcends the old (cp. 51% 
282), The three sacred possessions of Judaism have thus passed 
into higher uses, as a result of the life of Jesus the Christian 
messiah. It is Mt.’s aim to justify this transition by showing 
from the life of Jesus how it was not the claim of a heretical 
sect who misread the Bible by the light of their own presumptu- 
ousness, but the realisation of a divine purpose and the verification 
of divine prophecies in the sphere of history. 


The opening section (1"-4") describes the preparation of Jesus for his work, 
his birth-roll (11:11), birth (1'8-2"5), baptism at the hands of John (3'-!), and 


MATTHEW 245 


temptation (4᾽..}). The arrest of John marks his retiral and return to Galilee, 
where Kapharnaum became the headquarters of his Galilean mission (4}"-- 835). 
A summary or introduction (4% περιῆγεν... διδάσκων . . . Kal κηρύσσων 

. kal θεραπεύων) lays stress * upon his preaching or teaching, then upon 
his healing powers. Hence we get first of all a cycle of teaching (5-7, the so- 
called Sermon on the Mount), followed by a cycle of incidents in his healing 
work (8!-9*4, mainly miracles).f The summary or introduction is then re- 
peated (9355), in order to pave the way for the wider mission of the twelve 
(1o'-4") and a general survey of the relation of his own work to that of John, 
as well as of its Galilean results (111-*°).+ 

Hitherto the deeds and disciples of Jesus have occupied the foreground of 
the gospel. Now the evangelist describes in more detail (cp. 9!!*) the nature 
of the opposition which he had to encounter from the Pharisees (12! 1021, 22-37. 
38-45), while a series of excerpts from his parables (13!) is set within a brief 
account of his strained relations with his family (126-50) and townsfolk (1359-58), 
These conflicts develop into a crisis. The murder of John the Baptist (14!"!%) 
drives Jesus to safer quarters (14'**), where his mission is interrupted twice 
by encounters with the Pharisees and scribes (15'!) and the Pharisees and 
Sadducees (16!-*). This foreshadows only too clearly the end, and Peter’s 
confession at Czesarea Philippi (16'*?°) is therefore followed by a revelation 
of the coming tragedy at Jerusalem, in word and deed (167% 171%). Before 
closing his narrative of the Galilean mission, however, the evangelist adds a 
number of sayings (17*4-18*). 

The Judzean ministry really falls into two parts, one a brief record of some 
incidents and sayings on the way—to Jerusalem (19!-20*4), the other an 
account of the triumphal entry (21!-!”) and the subsequent teaching given by 
Jesus partly to his disciples in private, partly to the crowd in public (in the 
temple), and partly in controversy with the religious authorities (21'**).§ 
The period is summed up characteristically with a long, passionate invective 
against the scribes and Pharisees (23) and an apocalyptic forecast of the 
future (24), followed by a cycle of parables (25). The final story of the 
Passion (26!-27%) describes the circumstances of the arrest (261-50), the trial 
(26°7-2731), the crucifixion (2753. 55), and the burial (27°7°%). Two appear- 
ances of Jesus after death are then chronicled, one in Jerusalem to the 
women, one in Galilee to the eleven disciples, and the ministry of Jesus ends 
as it began with a commission spoken from a Galilean hill (281-1 11-15. 16-20), 


* Cp. 4! with 473 and 5}. 

+ Cp. Sir J. C. Hawkins on 8-9, in £7. xii. 471 f., xiii. 20 f. 

$~ Note how 11° summarises the preceding section, the blind regain their 
sight (9°), the lame walk (85:18 9}), the lepers are cleansed (813), the deaf 
hear (9°**4), the dead are raised up (918.19. 35:26) and the poor have the gospel 
preached to them (g* τοῦ 11°), 

8 Halévy (AS., 1902, 305 £.) is right in preferring Mt.’s version of the 
parable in 22‘ to Luke’s as being more pointed (cp. Hilgenfeld, ZW7., 
1893, 126-143); he is less happy in arguing that 22!-7 and 22: 8.18 are 
different redactions of the same story, and that the latter is modelled ona 
parable of R. ben Zakkai, a Sadducean teacher at Jamnia in the first 
century A.D. (quoted in Shabbath, 1536 and based on Ecclus 78, Isa 6513-14), 


246 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


From the point of view of effect, the work is clearly and coherently 
arranged; the successive paragraphs have a comprehensive sweep which 
unfolds the leading ideas in the author’s mind, even when it ignores the histori- 
cal perspective of the subject. It is this constructive literary power which 
characterises Mt. among the synoptics, ‘‘S’il ignorait Dart de peindre, 
comme Luc, ou de buriner, comme Marc, il avait pourtant, lui aussi, son 
talent de bon ouvrier. 11] possédait imagination ordonnatrice de l’architecte” 
(Nicolardot, p. 113). 

8.2. Matthew's treatment of Mk.—(Cp. F. H. Woods, SB. ii. 
63f.; Wernle, νη. Frage, 124-178; Schmiedel, 2.81. 1847- 
1849; Wellhausen, Ziz/.§ 6; Allen, pp. xili-xxxv ; Nicolardot, 
pp. 1-114, and B. H. Alford, 7., 1909, 649-661.) 

Besides Q (see above, pp. 194 f.), Mk. is the main source of 
the editor. He has treated it with a mixture of deference and 
freedom. Thus (a) in style, Mt. as a rule improves the rougher 
or Aramaic language of Mk. ; he is fond of inserting δὲ instead 
of καὶ, omitting ὅτε often after verbs of saying, diminishing the 
number of imperfects and historic presents, and reducing the 
use of ἤρξατο (ἤρξαντο) with the infinitive and of compound verbs 
(cp. 413 οἱ 12%). In the matter of chronological arrangement 
(ὁ) Mt.’s procedure exhibits more variations. Up to 4”? (from 3}), 
for all its additional material, the narrative of Mt. follows the 
exact order of Mk 11:29. but after this it diverges sharply. Mk. 
brings out the synagogue-ministry of Jesus in Galilee, but Mt. 
only mentions it vaguely * in his summaries (4323 9%); it is 
not until 12% (cp. 13%) that he gives any incident that occurred 
in a synagogue. The impression created by Jesus on the first 
occasion of his teaching in the synagogue of Kapharnaum 
(Mk 12) is made by Mt. (728-29) to follow the long Sermon on the 
Mount f (51-727). After transferring Mk 140-44 (cp. Mt 81:5), he 
then, for the healing of the demoniac in the same synagogue 
(Mk 17%%8), substitutes the healing of a centurion’s servant in the 
town (85-13).{ For a line or two he now reverts to the Marcan 
order (81416 = Mk 17-54), rounding off this triplet§ of cures 
(leprosy, paralysis, and fever) with a prophetic citation (817), In 
Mk 15-88 the embarrassing popularity of Jesus as a healer leads 

* 4%-% is substituted for Mk 1?! and based loosely on Mk 1 + 68, 

+ Cp. Moffatt (ZB. 4375-4391), Votaw (DB. v. 1-45), Adeney (DCG. 
ii. 607-612), and Salmon (Human Llement in Gospels, 109 f.). 

t Probably because it was so placed in Q. The setting of the Sermon is 
artificially taken from Mk 37%, which Lk. (6132) retains in its original position. 

§ One sufferer asks help ; another has it asked for him; the third receives 
aid without asking (note Mt.’s omission of Mk 1»), 


MATTHEW 247 


him to leave Kapharnaum to prosecute his proper work of 
preaching throughout the synagogues of Galilee; but Mt. merely 
makes it an occasion for crossing the lake (818), and inserts the 
stories of Mk 425-520 (= Mt 81&84),) Mk 21-22 (= Mt οἵ), 
Mk 52!-43 (= Mt g!86).* The short account of the choice and 
commission of the twelve (Mk 3}519 6618) is then expanded 
characteristically into a long discourse (Mt το); ἢ but 10!7-% is 
irrelevant (cp. Mk 13°18), and Mt. omits Mk 6!%18, His com- 
mission is not followed by a mission; the disciples do not go 
forth, and consequently do not return with any report of their 
work (as in Mk 63°), Hence the connection of 141} differs 
entirely from that of Mk 671, The eleventh chapter has no 
Marcan material, but for the conflicts of ch. 12 Mt. harks back 
to the substance of Mk 278-312 (= Mt 121-16), closing with a 
characteristic OT citation (1217-21), Mk 32-21 he omits, adds ἃ 
fresh miracle (1272-25), and then (1274-45) expands Mk 37780, 
following it up with Mk 451-86 (= 124650), and an enlarged 
version of Mk 4 (= Mt 13). The adherence to Mark’s order 
from this point becomes closer than ever ; having already used up 
Mk 4°5_54#, Mt. passes at once to Mk 6!-6 (= 1353-58), and hence- 
forth never drops the Marcan thread, though he embroiders it 
often with OT reminiscences, especially in the passion (e.g. 2734 48), 
A comparison of Mk. and Mt. thus proves that the latter is 
upon the whole secondary, and that he had no independent 
chronological tradition or information to guide him in placing 
either sayings or incidents. His choice and disposition of 
materials becomes less and less reliable, from a historical stand- 
point, when he leaves the Marcan record; the Palestinian 
anecdotes which belong to his Sondergut rarely rise above the 
level of edifying stories to that of historicity. Mt.’s corrections 
of Mk. are not those of an eye-witness, or of one who had access 


* Note how the president of the synagogue (Mk.) becomes simply the 
president in Mt. For the latter the synagogues had won an evil reputation 
Go"); 

+ On reaching 10! he inserts a passage (107° = Mk 316-19) which he had 
previously missed, and then expands (10%. U-l4) Mk 6811, The whole 
section throws valuable light upon the Palestinian missions of the early 
church ; for its literary structure, see B. Weiss (Quel/en α΄. Lukas-Evglms, 
128f.), and Schott in ZVW. (1906) 140f. ; for its reflection of the apostolic 
efforts between A.D. 30 and 60, Weizsicker, 4A. 1. 29-32, ii. 48f. On the 
special difficulty of τοῦτ (with Mk 68%, Lk τοῦ 22-58), see P. Méchineau in 
Etudes Relig. (1896) 303-315, and A. Wright (Z7. iv. 153-157). 


248 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


to special, first-hand sources of information. Their origin is 
almost entirely topical. 


The chronological data and the synchronisms are characteristically vague. 
The mission of John the Baptist is dated roughly ‘in the days of Archelaus’ 
(2% 37); the writer’s favourite and loose τότε (318 127% 8 151-29 1913 20%) 
links several paragraphs together, and even the more exact references are as a - 
rule due to the context (35? 4° ol αἰ 7472 1513 18% 19%? etc). The 
first saying of the Sabbath is introduced ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ (121), without any 
clue to the period. No hint is given of the return of the disciples from their 
mission, yet this is assumed to have occurred, and the place (1219, cp. 1174) 
is evidently Kapharnaum. The remark of Herod (14') is similarly vague, 
and the ἐν ἐκείνη τῇ ὥρᾳ of 18! is at once vaguer and more precise than the 
setting of Mk 9%*34, The retiral to Galilee (4!*) is simply dated after the 
arrest of John the Baptist, but neither here nor later (425 818 of 111 1216 
161) is any duration of time indicated. Some of the time notices (e.g. 81) 
are borrowed directly from Mk. ; other chronological notes are more character- 
istic, e.g. 918 (while he was speaking), 111 (after instructing the twelve for 
their mission, Jesus departs on one of his own), 12“ (as at 918), 13! ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα 
ἐκείνῃ), 15°" (three days apart with the crowd). 


(ὦ The writer’s engrossing interest in the sayings of Jesus 
leads him not only to break up the Marcan narrative with 
masses of logia, arranged in systematic blocks, but to abbreviate 
Mark’s introductory matter (cp. the omission of Mk 9?!-24 in 
171#21), Where Luke generally omits, Mt. prefers to condense 
or compress (statistics in AS. 158-160). 


It is a further note of Mt. to insert names * where the Marcan source had 
none (¢.g. Matthew, 9°; Caiaphas, 26% 57; Jesus,ft 27.6.17. This circum- 
stantial trait is counterbalanced by a tendency to allegorise Marcan sayings 
(cp. Nicolardot, Les procédés de Rédaction des Trois Premiers Evangélistes, pp. 
37-46). Matthew concludes with a saying of Jesus, and this tallies with his 
greater emphasis on the Lord’s doctrine. Unlike Mk. (17*-7) and even Luke 
(432°), he confines the authority of Jesus to teaching, instead of embracing 
under it the power of exorcising demons, etc. It is the sayings rather than 
the narratives of his book which reflect historical traditions ; the contents of 
the latter are sometimes as ambiguous as their connections. 


(4) The later and more ecclesiastical standpoint of Mt. 
comes out definitely in his recasting of the Marcan traditions 
relating to the disciples and Jesus. The former play a more 
important role than in Mk.; thus the saying about the spiritual 
family of Jesus is confined to them (Mt 1239) instead of being 


* On the names in Mk., see Wright (Some NT Problems, 57-73), and 
C. Ὁ. Burns (Contemporary Review, 1907, 417-424). 

+ That this reading is preferable to the ordinary text, is shown by Burkitt 
(Evang. Da-Meph. ii. 277-278). 


MATTHEW 249 


addressed generally to the bystanders (Mk 438. Mt. minimises * 
the faults of the disciples (131618 with Mk 418, cp. 1352; 14 
with Mk 652; 16912 with Mk 817-22 ; cp. the significant omission of 
Mk 96: 10. 82, the smoothing down of Mk 9g**f in 1816, the change 
of Mk 10%? in 2017 εἴς), and endeavours to eliminate or to 
soften any trait derogatory to the credit of the twelve. A 
similar ft reverence for the character of Jesus appears in his 
omission of words or passages like Mk 14 35 32! (charge of 
madness) to! and 113, and in changes like those of 19! 
(Mk rol”) and 2659 (cp. Mk 1458); the miraculous power of 
Jesus is heightened (contrast 816 with Mk 13283, 1717-18 with 
Mk 9?-*6 etc.), and the author shrinks as far as possible from 
allowing demons to recognise him as the messiah;{ the 
prophetic power of Jesus is also expanded and made more 
definite (cp. 715 1245 2148 2419 26? etc.). 

§ 3. Structure.—The composite nature of Matthew may be 
explained not only on the hypothesis of the use of earlier sources, 
but also on the theory that the canonical text represents later 
glosses, interpolations, and expansions, like that in Sir 491416, 
The three places at which this theory (which depends largely on 
the use of textual criticism) comes into special prominence are, 
(a) 1-2, (ὁ) 1617, and (c) 2816-20, 

(2) The βίβλος γενέσεως of 1-2 represents the author’s version 
of a Palestinian tradition which already contained the virgin-birth. 
None of its three sections (1117 the genealogy, 118 the birth, 
21-23 the childhood), not even the first, need be anything else 
than a free composition ; whatever was the basis for the Jewish- 
Christian belief upon which the writer drew (cp. W. C. Allen, 
Interpreter, 1905, pp. 51f.; Box, zdid., 1906, 195f.), the 
narrative, judged from the standpoint of literary criticism, offers 
no adequate criteria for distinguishing between a source and an 
editor, or between an original gospel and an addition. It isa 


* But not invariably (cp. 15!” and 268). 

+ Both the desire to spare the twelve and the reluctance to dwell on the 
human affectionateness of Jesus appears in his version (19!*!5) of Mk 10!3-16 ; 
the former, together with a characteristic hesitation to record a reproach 
addressed to Jesus, in 8% (cp. Mk 4585). 

1 This is one of his clearest attempts to improve upon Mark (cp. Bacon, 
ZNW., 1905, 155f.); it “15 to be viewed in the light of the known 
accusations of collusion with Beelzebub brought against Jesus and his 
followers, with the marked silence of the Fourth gospel on this type of 
mighty works.” 


250 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


piece of early Christian midrashic narrative, drawn up in ordet 
to show how the various incidents and features of the nativity 
were a fulfilment of OT prophecy (virgin-birth 1226, in Bethlehem 
2°f. flight to Egypt 215, weeping in Ramah 217-18, and the name 
Nazarene 2?%).* 


Neither the style nor the contents of 1-2 afford valid evidence for sus- 
pecting that they are a later insertion in the gospel.t The hypothesis that this 
section did not originally form part of the gospel was advocated in the eighteenth 
century by Dr. John Williams (4 Free Enguzry into the Authenticity of the 
First and Second Chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel*, London, 1789), then 
by Ammon (Déssertatio de Luca emendatore Matthai, 1805), and afterwards 
by Norton (i. 16-17) ; it is still urged on the plea that 118-23 was an after- 
thought or later interpolation (so, ¢.g., Keim and Merx), since the connection 
between 1/7 and 3! is quite natural. The hypothesis that the editor or final 
author of the gospel has incorporated an earlier source ¢ in 1-2, working it over 
for his own purposes, becomes especially plausible (i.) with reference to the 
genealogy (1718), which has often been taken (e.g. by de Wette, Olshausen, 
Sabatier: ESR. v. 464, Delitzsch, Meyer, Bacon: DZ. ii. 137 f., and Loisy) 
as originally a Jewish Christian document, or even as a later insertion (¢. A.D. 
170; Charles in Academy, 1894, 447f.). The latter theory is improbable ; 
the interest in the Davidic sonship was not paramount at that period. As for 
the former conjecture, the genealogy is probably the composition of the author 
himself arranged for mnemonic purposes in three sets of fourteen generations 
(the double 7 reflecting the author’s penchant for that sacred number). In 
structure and contents it is quite artificial,§ inferior to Luke’s, and intended 


* The further problem (cp. Feigel, Der Einfluss des Weissagungsbewetses 
u. anderer Motive auf α΄. Leidens geschichte, 1910) for the historical critic is to 
determine to what extent the prophetic citations created or moulded the 
narratives, here as elsewhere in Mt. ‘‘ The narratives have a basis in fact, 
or in what is assumed to be or regarded as fact. But in form they have often 
been assimilated to earlier models, and display unmistakable midrashic 
features ” (Box, ZVW., 1905, 88). 

+ On 1-2 as an integral part of the gospel, cp. Box (ZNVW., 1905, 83f.). 

t Or sources ; Meyer, ¢.g., finds three in 11-16 118-°5 and 2. 

8 ‘It is artificial from beginning to end, and meant to be so, as artificial 
as the lists of the twelve thousand sealed out of every tribe of Israel except 
Dan in the book of Revelation” (Burkitt, Zvang. Da-Meph. ii. 260). Halévy 
(RS., 1902, 221f.) ingeniously suggests that the forty-two generations of 
Mt., with the twenty from Adam to Abraham, are designed to make up the 
62 ‘weeks’ of years in Dn 9*-*, which were to follow the 7 weeks of 
Zerubbabel, and to be followed by messiah’s tragic death (cp. 24"), But, 
apart from the exegetical obstacles, there is no adequate proof that the Daniel- 
tradition was a norm to which any messianic aspirant had to conform, or that 
Mt. dated the death of Jesus from such a messianic prophecy. If any source 
of the schematism has to be postulated, the cabbalistic interpretation of ™, 
whose three letters are equivalent by gematria to the number 14, is the most 
probable. 


MATTHEW 251 


to show that Jesus, as the Christ, was legally descended from David-—the 
primary essential, from a Jewish standpoint, for any messianic claimant. A 
further apologetic motive is evident in the introduction of the women’s names, 
especially of Rahab, Tamar, and Bathsheba. They reflect the Jewish slanders 
which the author desired to rebut, not only by stating what he believed to be 
the truth about Mary, but by arguing that, even on the Jewish level, women 
of irregular life played an honoured rdle in the history of the Davidic lineage. 
Mary’s character, he proceeds to argue, was not irregular. How much less 
therefore (the inference is) are Jewish objections to her and to Jesus justified ! 
These data of the genealogy show that the story of 118" was its natural sequel 
(cp. Allen, £7. xi. 135f.), and consequently that the case for a source is 
much weaker here than in Luke. There is no obvious reason why a Jewish 
Christian who, like the author, was interested in the lore of Judaism, should 
not have compiled the genealogy for his own special purposes. 

The birth-narratives in Matthew and Luke stand thus on a different footing. 
In the latter, the omission of a word or two (in 1°45) leaves the narrative 
fairly consecutive and intelligible. In the former, no hypothesis of literary 
criticism or textual emendation* can disentangle the conception of a virgin- 
birth from a story which is wrought together and woven on one loom. t : 

(ii.) The textual problem of 116 is not yet settled, but the earliest variants 
(of which that in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila—Conybeare, H/. i. 
96-102—is not one) show traces, variously phrased, of belief in the virgin- 
birth (cp. J. R. Wilkinson, /77. i. 354-359). Such modifications as may be 
due to doctrinal prepossessions are designed to re-set or to sharpen the 
reference of the original text to the virgin-birth, not to insert the dogma in 
a passage which was originally free from it. The Syriac variants (cp. Burkitt, 
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. 262f.) may be regarded as derived from SS 
(Jacob begat Joseph, Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat 
Jesus who ts called the Messiah),t which is connected with the Greek text of 
the Ferrar group, underlying the old Latin, and the Armenian versions (2. 6. 
᾿Ιακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Ιωσήῴφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν 
᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν). In any case ἐγέννησε refers throughout to 
legal kinship, not to physical parentage (cp. A. S. Lewis, Old Syriac Gospels, 
1910, pp. xiv-xvii). 

(iii.) The story § of 2" in whole or part has been assigned to a period 


"The deletion of ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου (118) by Venema, Markland, 
Bakhuyzen, and Vollgraff is quite arbitrary, though Burkitt (Av. Da-Meph. 
ii. 261) rightly follows SS in omitting οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν ἕως οὗ (135) as a later 
Christian comment introduced to safeguard the physical miracle. 

ἡ This tells against the primitive origin of the exangelium infantiae, and 
against all theories of its place in Q or in any pre-canonical source which can 
be detected in the gospels. Resch’s attempt (A7xdhettsevangelium, 264-276) 
to prove that Paul was acquainted with it is a complete failure. 

$Cp. van Manen (77., 1895, pp. 258-263), who defends this as the 
original reading in Matt. The textual phenomena are displayed in 2 Sz, 
2962, as amended in PJ/., 1902, 85-95. 

§ Cp. Beyschlag, W774. ii. 478: ‘In the story of the travelling stax 
which pointed the way to the magi, in that of Peter walking on the waves, 


252 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


later than that of the gospel ; but on insufficient grounds. In a Syriac tract, 
attributed to Eusebius, and extant in a sixth century MS (cp. transl. by 
Wright in Journal of Sacred Lit., April, October, 1866 ; Nestle, ZWT., 1893, 
435-438), an account of the magi and the star is given, whose date purports 
to be a.p. 118-119. If it could be established (so Conybeare in Guardian, 
April 29, 1903, cp. D. Vélter, 77., 1910, 170-213), that the author ‘‘had in 
his hands a pre-canonical Greek source of 179 or 120,” this might denote the 
terminus a quo for the incorporation of 2'!§ into the canonical text of 
Mt. ; but the inference is hazardous. The text runs thus: ‘ This question 
[z.e. about the Balaam-prophecy of the star and the coming of the magi 
to Bethlehem in the reign of Pir Shabour] arose in the minds of men who 
were acquainted with the holy books, and through the efforts of great men 
in various places this history was sought for, and found, and written in the 
tongue of those who attended to the matter.” The ‘holy books’ probably 
include the NT, the ‘history’ is not the story of Mt 2)" but the Balaam- 
legend, and the question related to the verification of the date in Mt. or to 
the harmonising of the Lucan and Matthean stories of the infancy (cp. 
Hilgenfeld, Z/V7., 1895, 447f., and Zahn, 1.77). ii. 527). It is curious that 
_according to astronomical observations an important and rare conjunction of 
the planets (Jupiter and Saturn) did take place between April 15th and 
December 27th of 6 B.c., which may have led to acute speculation amongst 
Babylonian astrologers, who were accustomed to forecast the effects of such 
phenomena upon Syria.* This may suggest a historical nucleus for the early 
Christian haggada of Mt 211, 


(4) 1617-20 js also more likely to be organic to a gospel 
which reflected the later catholic consciousness of Christianity 
(cp. HVT. 646 f.), and particularly Matthew’s high estimate of the 
apostles, than a later interpolation in a very early gospel, much 
less an integral part of such a gospel (Keim, iv. 266 f.; Stevens, 
NTTh. 136f.). The original saying f goes back to the Jewish 
conception of fefra (N05, cp. the rabbinic quotation in Taylor’s 
Sayings of Jewish Fathers®, 160) as applied by God to Abraham, 
‘when He saw Abraham who was going to arise, He said, Lo, I 
have found a Zefra to build and to found the world upon.’ Even 
in the Greek expansion of the evangelist the saying does not 
presuppose a period of christological development later than 
that assigned to the gospel as a whole, and the similar passage in 
Jn 2022-23 seems a correction of the specifically Petrine privilege 
or of the OT saints rising in the hour of Jesus’ death, Mt. has manifestly 
translated poetic traditions into history. Even Lk. has taken for genuine 
history the legendary traditions of his introductory chapters.” 

* The suggestions of Kepler have been recently elaborated, on the basis 
of a Babylonian demotic papyrus, by Oefele in his essay (A/#tthetlungen der 


Vorderasiat. Gesellschaft, 1903) on ‘das Horoskop der Empfangnis Christi.’ 
+ Cp. Bruston in A7QR, (1902) 326-341. 


MATTHEW 253 


of the Matthzean logion. For this, as well as for other reasons 
(cp. Zahn’s Forschungen, i. 163 f., 290f.), it is unlikely that 1617-19 
(cp. Schmiedel, 2.42. 1876, 1892, 3104-3105) is an interpolation, 
or that 161819 represents an insertion made by the church of 
Rome (Victor), ¢c A.D. 190, in the interests of its catholic 
authority (so Grill, Der Primat des Petrus, 1904, pp. 61-79). 

(c) While the epilogue (281%) naturally does not give the 
ipsissima uerba of Christ (cp. ZHWZ. 647-649), it is an organic 
part of the gospel, which rounds off the narrative ;* there is 
nothing in its phraseology which is inconsistent with the catholic 
consciousness of the early church during the last quarter of the 
first century. The only point of dubiety lies in 2819, The 
theory that the textus receptus of this verse arose between a.p. 
130 and 140 in the African old Latin texts, owing to baptismal 
and liturgical considerations, and that the original text was the 
shorter Eusebian form (πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν 
τῷ ὀνόματί μου), was proposed by F. C. Conybeare (ZV IV, 1901, 
275-280; H/. i. 102-108) and has been accepted by Usener 
(Rhein. Museum, 1902, 39 f.), Kirsopp Lake: Jnfluence of Text. 
Criticism on NT Exegesis (1904), pp. 7 f., Wellhausen, Allen, and 
Montefiore, amongst others. ‘The opposite side is represented 
by Riggenbach (L/T., 1903, vii. 1, ‘ Der trinitarische Taufbefehl 
Mt 2819 nach seiner urspriingliche Textgestalt und seiner 
Authentie untersucht’) and Chase (/Z7S., 1905, 483f.). The 
phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου may be a Western harmonising interpo- 
lation (so Riggenbach, from Lk 2457; Chase, from Mk 16%), or 
an insertion of Eusebius himself, independent of any codices in 
the Cesarean library. Also, the fact that Eusebius in a number 
of his works refrains from quoting the verse in its canonical 
form, and omits all reference to baptism, does not necessarily 
involve that the canonical form was not in existence, if it can be 
proved that it was natural for him to omit the baptismal clause 
as irrelevant to his immediate purpose, quoting only the words 
which follow and precede it in the canonical text. The 
occurrence of the latter in the Syriac version of the Zheophania 


* Cp. Norden (Antike Kunstprosa, ii. 456): ‘Xp& rots μὲν Ἕλλησιν ὡς 
Ἕλλησιν, Tots δὲ βαρβάροις ws βαρβάροις, ist die Weisung, die der Griechische 
Philosoph einer Tradition zufolge seinem die Welt erobernden Schiiler 
Alexander auf den Weg mitgab; πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη 
sagte der Stifter der christlichen Religion zu seiner Schiiler als er sie in die 
Welt aussandte.’ 


254 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


(iv. 8) shows that some old Syriac MSS must have had the 
baptism in the name of the Trinity, and Ephraim’s comment 
on the Diatessaron indicates that the latter represented the 
ordinary text of Mt. at this point (cp. Burkitt’s Evang. Da- 
Meph. i. 172f., 11. 171, 279). Didaché 7, again, shows that the 
trinitarian formula was possible by the first quarter of the 
second century, but this does not prove that it was derived 
from Mt 28!% The question has an obvious bearing not only 
on the date, but on the ethos of Matthew’s gospel. On the 
whole, the probabilities seem to converge on the likelihood that 
the trinitarian form was introduced by the author of the gospel 
himself, as a liturgical expansion of the primitive formula of 
baptism into the name of Jesus (cp. J. R. Wilkinson, H/. i. 
571-5753 Stanton, GHD. i. 355 f.). 

Most of the other structural difficulties can be explained as 
the result either of the author’s work as a compiler and editor, 
or of later harmonising. The main exception is 5!%1% but even 
this does not justify the hypothesis of a later revision. 


The disruption of the context by Mt 28*!°, whose contents do no more 
than repeat those of vv.57, suggests that it is an editorial interpolation or 
later gloss (so, ¢.g., Keim, vi. 308f. ; Soltau, Schmiedel). Nothing new is 
communicated by Jesus; he simply repeats what the angel has already said. 
Whether it is a reminiscence of the tradition underlying Jn 2015 1 (cp. the 
common use of drethren), or borrowed from the lost Marcan ending (see 
above, pp. 238f.), it is a plausible conjecture (Rohrbach, Harnack) that its 
insertion may have taken place early in the second century, when the 
formation of the gospel-canon led to a certain amount of alteration especially 
in the resurrection-narrative, in order to level up the synoptic traditions (with 
their Galilean appearances) to the Johannine (Jerusalem). 

This dual character of the resurrection-stories (Galilee, Jerusalem), which 
becomes a special problem in the historical criticism of Mt. and Lk., has started 
an ingenious attempt to locate the Galilee-appearances at Jerusalem by means 
of a harmonising hypothesis which assumes that Galilee here is not the 
province but a place in the vicinity of Jerusalem (so especially R. Hofmann, 
‘*Galilaa auf dem Oelberg,” 1896; Zimmermann in S&., 1901, 446f., and 
Lepsius, ‘Die Auferstehungsberichte,” in eden. τ. Abhandlungen, iv., 
1902), and which summons to its aid the conjecture (Resch, 7U. x. 2. 381f., 
x. 3. 765f., xii. 332f., 362f., 586) that περίχωρος (in Mk 1% etc.; cp. 
Abbott’s Déat. 438 f., 1232)* is the Gk. equvalent of ΠΣ (cp. Ezek 47°), 
a district east of the temple, surrounding the mount of Olives and including 
Bethany. There would thus be two Galilees in the NT: one that of 
northern Palestine, the sphere of the early ministry of Jesus, the other that 


* The double sense of 03 is used both by Chajes (Markus-Studien, 13) 
and Abbott to explain Lk 4°7=Mk 1%, 


MATTHEW 255 


of Jerusalem, the location of Christ’s appearances after death. But the 
evidence for this theory breaks down upon examination. The medizval 
pilgrims found a site here and there for Galilee on Olivet or Mount Sion, - 
simply because they already (cp. Zahn, GA. ii. 937) felt the difficulty of 
harmonising the resurrection-narratives. Tertullian’s language in Aol. 21 
does not bear out Resch’s contention (cp. Schiirer, 7ZZ., 1897, 1871.), 
while the theory is further handicapped by the need of assuming not only 
that Luke at one place (24°) misread Mk 16’, although elsewhere he (24°, 
Ac 113) preserved the real meaning of Galilee, but that, without any warning, 
the term changes its geographical meaning in the synoptic tradition, The 
hypothesis therefore falls to the ground (so, ¢.g., Keim, vi. 380; W. C. Allen, 
E Bi. 2987 ; Gautier, 4.82. 3498 ; Schmiedel, 4.82, 4044 ; Lake, Resurrection 
Narratives, 208-209 ; Masterman, DCG. ii. 207; A. Meyer, Auferstehungs- 
berichte, 95 f.). 

§ 4. Characteristics.—The main problem of the gospel remains, 
however, viz. the juxtaposition of Jewish or particularistic (e.g. 
ro8f. 23 7524 1038 23%) and catholic (eg. 127 24! and 2819) 
sayings (cp. 1612 and 23%). Are the former due to a Judaistic 
recension of the Logia (Schmiedel, #47. 1842-3, 1870), and 
were the latter, together with some of the less historical traits, the 
work of a later editor or editors more friendly to the Gentiles 
(Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Schwegler: ΔΖ. i. 199f., 241f.)? The 
answer to these questions depends upon the critical analysis of 
the gospel. Keim (i. 86 f.) ascribes, eg., 117-278 314-15 811-12 221-14 
251-12 2719 62-66 2816. to a zealous Jewish-Christian, of liberal 
sympathies, who wrote after the fall of Jerusalem. Soltau’s better 
theory (ZVI, 1900, 219-248) is that a series of editorial 
additions to the original Matthew may be found, e.g., in 1-2, 314-15 
4116 518-19 817 polT-2 1 214-16, 35 212-5 2615. 53 (56) 2.γ(8) 9-10. 84. 48, 57 
27°2_280 ; the original Matthew was compiled from Mk. and the 
Logia by an opponent of Judaism, but the editor was a strict 
Jewish Christian of catholic sympathies and dogmatic preposses- 
sions. This is decidedly simpler than the older theory of Scholten 
(Het Oudste Evangelie, 93f.), which postulated three different 
editions of Matthew. But the solution lies in the idiosyncrasies 
of the author rather than in the strata of the gospel. The author 
of Matthew is unconsciously self-portrayed in 1357; he is ypappa- 
revs μαθητευθεὶς τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν ὅμοιος ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσ- 
πότῃ ὅστις ἐκβάλλει ἐκ τοῦ θησαυροῦ αὐτοῦ καινὰ καὶ παλαιά, He 
is ἃ Jewish Christian, acquainted with rabbinic learning ;* the 
midrashic element is more pronounced in his work than in either 


* “*Les formules bien frappées, breves, sentencieuses y abondent; on y 
sent vraiment le docteur qui parle avec autorité” (Jacquier, /V7. ii. 383). 


256 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


Mark or Luke, and it is most conspicuous in the passages which 
come directly from his own pen. The Jewish Christian traits of 
his gospel are, however, largely due to the Palestinian traditions 
which he employed, as well as to the thesis of his own work, 
viz. that Christianity as the new law and righteousness of God 
had superseded the old as a revelation of God to men.* He 
voices the catholic and apostolic consciousness of the early 
church, which saw in its universal mission to the world a com- 
mission of Jesus to his disciples, and in its faith a new and 4inai 
law of God’s méssiah. Mt. thus approximates to the standpoint 
of Luke and of James. He does not show any anti-Pauline 
tendency ; it is forced exegesis to detect a polemic against Paul,t 
e.g. in the description of ¢he enemy in 1378 or in 519 (cp. 1 Co 159). 
If Mt. has any affinities with the great apostle, it is with the 
Paul of Ro 9!f, not of Ro 111", much less of Gal 2%, His 
Jewish Christian proclivities are strongly marked even in details 
(e.g. 242°, his fondness for ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, the addition 
of καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην in 688 [cp. 34=517, Gal 45], etc.), but he 
sees the real Judaism not in the Israel { which had deliberately 
(cp. 2735, note the emphatic πᾶς ὃ λαός) rejected Jesus, but in 
the church. It is not accidental that ἐκκλησία only occurs in 
Mt., among the evangelists. He reflects an age when the church 


* Wellhausen ( 27:1. 7of.) minimises unduly the catholic and universal 
traits of the final editor. ‘‘ Mt. has in view the primitive church of Jerusalem, 
which sought to hold fast by Judaism in spite of everything. Hostility to the 
official representatives of the Law is never expressed more bitterly than by 
him. . . . But this enmity is a rival race for the same goal, viz. for the 
fulfilment of the Law and for righteousness. This goal is naturally higher 
for Christians than for Jews; nevertheless, on that very account the former 
claim to be the true representatives of Judaism and refuse to yield place to 
the false. They still take part in the cultus at Jerusalem (5%), pay the 
temple-tax, . . . confine their propaganda outside Jerusalem to Jews, 
exclude pagans and Samaritans, and will not cast their holy pearls before 
swine (τοῦ 7°).” But this is retained, partly for archaic reasons, from the 
sources ; it is not so fundamental for Mt. as the larger atmosphere of catholic 
feeling. Wellhausen himself (Zz#/. 88f.) admits the probability of this 
later on. ς 

+ He alone of the evangelists uses ἀνομία, and he is specially opposed to 
hypocrisy ; but the former need not, any more than the latter, be an anti- 
Pauline touch. 

t Cp. Wellhausen’s remark on 2357 ‘Er [z.e, Jesus] hat durch seine 
Apostel immer wieder Versuche gemacht, die Juden in seiner Gemeinde 
(2nischta) τὰ sammeln (2’masch) und vor dem drohenden Zorn zuflucht zu 
gewahren, aber vergebens.” 


MATTHEW 259 


and the kingdom were becoming more closely identified, when 
the Gentile mission was in full swing, when the initial flush and 
rush of the faith in Palestine had been succeeded by experiences 
of false prophets, unworthy members,* and the obstacles which 
a new organisation creates as well as removes. 

Writing for the practical needs of the church, he betrays the 
vocation of a teacher incidentally in the mnemonic and mathe- 
matical arrangements of his material, among other things. Thus 
there are three divisions in the genealogy (12:11), three angel- 
messages to Joseph in dreams (120 218. 19), three temptations 
(414), a triple description of the mission (433 see above), a triple 
illustration in 522 (cp. 59495 99-41) the threefold definition of 
61:1. 5-15. 16-18 (cp, also 6910 77-6. 22. 26. 27) three miracles of healing 
(81-15), three further miracles (833-09), three other miracles of 
healing (91°84), the triple rhythm of 117 (cp. 125°), the threefold 
attack of the Pharisees (12% 10f 24) three parables of sowing 
(131), three instances of Verily I say to you (18* 18. 18) + three 
classes of eunuchs (1912), the threefold rhythm of 2019 (εἰς τὸ 
κτλ.) and 21%, three parables (2118-2214), three questions put to 
Jesus (2215-49), three warnings (23°), cp. 2320-22 2323 mint and 
dill and cummin, justice and mercy and faithfulness, 2334 prophets 
and wise men and scribes), the three men of the parable (25146), 
three prayers in Gethsemane (26°64), three denials of Peter 
(26°F), three questions of Pilate (2717-22), three mockeries of the 
crucified (27°44), three women specially mentioned at the cross 
(275°), and the threefold rhythm of 281920, With this numerical 
trait we may rank the fivefold occurrence of the formula καὶ 
ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν κτλ. (778 11} 1358 101 261), the fivefold 
antithesis of 521-48. and the fivefold rhythm of 107* (cp. 10%1°) ; 
the seven evil spirits of 1245, the sevenfold forgiveness of 1821-22 
(cp. 2235), the seven loaves and baskets (15% 87), and the 
sevenfold woe of 23. It may be only accidental that there are 
ten OT citations (1-414) previous to the beginning of the 
Galilean mission, and there happen to be ten miracles in 8!—9*, 
The irregular number of the beatitudes (515), where schematism 
would have been easy, shows that the writer did not work out 


* ‘* He seems to move amid a race of backsliders” (Abbott, ZA7z. 1788); 
but the references are too general to be connected with the retrogression of 
Jewish converts when the breach between Gentile and Jewish Christians 
widened c. A.D. 70. 

+ The ἀμὴν in 18” is to be omitted. 


17 


258 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


numerical schemes* quite regardless of the materials at his 
disposal, though homiletic influences undoubtedly were respons: 
ible for the form as occasionally for the content of the latter. 


The character of the OT citations throws a particular ray of light on the 
heterogeneous strata of the gospel as well as on the specific interests of the 
compiler or editor. In 25 4% §!7 13% and 27%: we have paraphrastic 
renderings of the Hebrew.t Here, as elsewhere, citations which differ alike 
from the Hebrew and the LXX may occasionally be the result of the natural 
looseness with which early Christian writers occasionally cited the OT from 
memory, or freely adapted texts for purposes of edification. In such cases 
the differences aré immaterial. In others, ¢.g. in 27% (cp. H. R. Hatch, 
Biblical World, 1893, 345-354, and J. R. Harris, Zxp.7, 1905, 161-171), 
the use of a flort/egium is the clue to the textual phenomena. The dual 
nature of the citations remains, however, upon any hypothesis, and it is a 
watermark of compilation. Asa rule Matthew assimilates quotations already 
found in Mk. more closely to the LXX, or else leaves them as he finds them 
in that state. The main exceptions to this—in 2112, where, like Lk. (19%), he 
omits the πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν of the LXX (Mk 112”), and in 27%, where the 
closer approximation of ἱνατί to the LXX is balanced by the substitution of 
the vocative θεέ μου for ὁ θεός μου (Mk 1553 LXX)—are not of any special 
moment. The same holds true of the non-Marcan allusions to, or citations of, 
the OT, with the striking exception of twelve passages (178 215 218 238 48 1218 
215 besides the five noted above),t which indicate a recourse to the original 
with a more or less subordinate use of the LXX. These passages are all 
connected with the fulfilment of prophecy. Two of them (2% and 27%!) may 
have been taken originally from the apocryphal book of Jeremiah (Jerome, 
cp. Resch’s Parallel-Texte, ii. 334f., 369 f.), three come from Micah (2°), 
Hosea (2!5),§ and Jeremiah (218) respectively, while a couple (4° 1385) are 
from the Psalter. The rest are drawn from Isaiah (21° being a composite 
citation of Isaiah and Zechariah). 


With regard to the motives underlying Mt.’s account, an 
apologetic element emerges at the outset in the ascription of the 
birth to prophecy, as well as in the inclusion of the women in the 


* On this cp. Luthardt’s paragraphs in his essay, De Compositione 
Evangelit Matthai (Leipzig, 1861), Plummer (pp. xix f.), and Abbott (Diaz. 
3352 ¢). 

+ Cp. E. Haupt’s Zur Wardigung der alt. Citationen im Ev. Mt. 
(Treptow, 1870) on 8:7 (pp. 1-7) 13 (pp. 7-10) and 27° (pp. 10-16); Allen 
in E7. xii. 281f., and Nestle in #7. xix. on 2% (pp. 527f.), and (5 7. xx. 
92-93) on 123. 

t The midrashic development in 21° is carried a step further by Justin 
(A fol. i. 32), who binds the foal to a vine. 

§ The difference between this forced application (due to the identification 
of Jesus here, as in the temptation story, with Israel) and the apt citation in 
g'3 (1217), illustrates the composite character of Matthew’s gospel (cp. Burkitt's 
Transmission, 202-203). 


MATTHEW 259 


genealogy. The author aimed at contemporary Jewish insinua- 
tions against the honour of Mary. The birth of Jesus was the 
fulfilment of prophecy ; Joseph openly recognised Mary as his 
wife before the birth ; and even in the Davidic genealogy women 
like Tamar and Rahab, besides Ruth the foreigner, had played a 
part by Divine commission. It is true that the earliest possible 
record of the well-known Jewish slander dates from about 
A.D. 130, while it does not become prominent till the age of 
Celsus, half a century later (Hilgenfeld in ZWT., 1900, pp. 
271f.); but it must be earlier than its literary records, and some 
such slander was inevitable in Jewish circles as soon as the 
dogma of the virgin-birth was marked, particularly when 
argument was rife over the messianic claims of Jesus. Else- 
where in Mt. a sensitiveness to contemporary Jewish slander is 
visible, as in the story of 281-15, and the humble, grateful recogni- 
tion of Jesus the messiah* at his birth by the foreign magi is 
thrown into relief against his subsequent reception by the 
Jews. 

Mt. has also his eye upon difficulties felt inside the church, 
e.g. about the relation of Jesus to the Law and the Gentile 
mission. A certain perplexity had further been felt, by the time 
he wrote, about the baptism of Jesus, and his account in 4131: 
attempts to explain how the holy messiah submitted to baptism 
at the hands of John.t The purpose of John’s baptism, εἰς 
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτίων (Mk 14), is omitted, and there is a tacit contrast 
between the people (Mt 3°) and the religious authorities (3! 
ὑμᾶς. . . εἰς μετάνοιαν) on the one hand, and Jesus (2314) on the 
other. The curious story of the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews (cp. Jerome, contra Pedag. iii. 2,and Cyprian, de rebapt. 
xvii.), that Jesus only went ᾧ after refusing at first to accompany 
his father and mother (cp. the motive of John 7°"), is accepted 
by some scholars, eg. by O. Holtzmann (Leden Jesu, Eng. tr. 
127f.), as authentic. Both this and the account in Mt. are 
probably more or less independent attempts to explain the same 

* The significant change in 317 (cp. Jub 22% 8; Halévy, AS., 1903, 32f., 
123 f., 210f.) substitutes a public proclamation for an inward assurance. 

+ The passage thus tallies with the ratification of Christian baptism in 
281° ; the validity of the institution is proved apologetically by the fact that 
Jesus himself not only enjoined it but submitted to it. 

t ‘* Dixit autem eis, quid peccaui, ut uadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte 


hoc ipsum, quod dixi, ignorantia est.”” The fragment hreaks off here; but, 
as the next fragment proves, Jesus did go eventually. 


260 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


incident. But this opens up the larger question of the relation 
between the two works. 

§ 5. Mt. and the Euangelium ituxta Hebreos.—When the 
Matthzan document is identified with Q (see above, pp. 194 f.), 
the speculations of early tradition and recent investigation 
upon the relation of the canonical Mt. to the τὸ Ἰουδαικὸν 
lose their basis and interest, although the latter document 
remains one of the problems and enigmas of early Christian 
literature. Even yet there is no sort of agreement upon the 
relation of the canonical Matthew, or of Q (= the Matthzan 
Logia), to what came to be called ‘the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews’ (εὐαγγέλιον καθ᾽ Ἑβραίους). The latter, to judge from 
the Stichometry of Nikephorus, was larger than Mk. and smaller 
than Mt.; it was the Greek translation of an Aramaic original, 
used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites especially, and 
eventually circulated among the Jewish Christians of Egypt. 
So much is clear. But its origin is a mystery. Was it (so from 
Bleek and Frank: SX., 1846, 369f., to Wernle, Syz. Frage, 
248f.; Julicher, Zzz/, 261; A. F. Findlay, etc.) a second-hand 
and second-century compilation mainly based on the canonical 
gospels (especially Mt. and Lk.),* or a source co-ordinate with 
the canonical Gospels (O. Holtzmann’s Leden Jesu, Eng. tr. 46- 
52) and even used by Mt. and Lk. (Handmann, 7'U. v. 3. 127 f.)? 
These are the two extremes of critical opinion. The latter is 
modified by those who hold that both Mt. and Heb. gospel were 
written by the same hand (Nicholson, Zhe Gospel according to 
the Hebrews, 1879), or that both were versions of the Ur- 
Matthdus (so, e.g., Schneckenburger, Zahn), while there is still 
support for the traditional view that the Heb. gospel were 
really the work of Matthew to which the tradition of Papias 
refers (so, ¢.g., Hilgenfeld, Die Euglien, 43 f.; ZWT., 1863, 345 f., 
1889, 280f., and Barns, cp. A. Meyer, AWA. i. 18-19).t 
Setting aside the latter theory, we may upon the whole feel 


* Specifically a second-century Jewish-Christian adaptation of Mt. 
(Weizsicker, Untersuchungen, 223f.; Resch, 7U. v. 4. 322 f. ; Hoennicke, 
JC. 98, etc.) or of Lk. (B. Weiss, Zzn/. 494 f.). 

+ To the literature cited by Ehrhard (ACZ. 139 f.) and A. Meyer (ΔΑ, 
ii. 21f.), add Menzies (D&B. v. 338-342), A. Ε΄ Findlay (DCG. i. 675 f.), 
Stanton (GHD. i. 250f.), Adeney (/7/. iii. 139-159), and Barnes (/7°S., 
April 1905, 356f.). The extant fragments are collected in Preuschen’s 
Antilegomena (3-8) and Harnack (4CZL. i. 1. 6f.), and translated by 
Nicholson (of. cz#. pp. 28 f.) and B. Pick (Paralipomena, Chicago, 1908). 


LUKE 261 


justified in refusing also to regard the gospel καθ᾽ ‘Efpatovs as a 
derivative compilation. Its use by Hegesippus (cp. Δ. 270f.), 
possibly also by Ignatius and Papias,* throws the date of its 
composition into the early part of the second century, and the 
internal evidence suggests an even earlier period (A.D. 70-100, 
Harnack, ACZ. ii. 1. 625 f.). The gospel, in its original form,t 
was probably one of the narratives which preceded Luke (12) ; 
it was a Jewish Christian διηγήσις which assigned special promi- 
nence to James as Mt. did to Peter, and which derived part of 
its material from primitive and fairly authentic sources. The 
tradition which connected it with Matthew is pure guesswork, 
started by misinterpretations of the earlier tradition about 
Matthew’s Logia. The gospel καθ᾽ Ἕ βραίους was originally 
anonymous (Handmann, pp. 114f.); it was a gospel of the 
twelve, not a gospel of Matthew. Unlike the canonical Mt. 
it had no Luwangelium infantie, though it may have had a 
genealogy, since its purpose was to prove the messianic 
legitimacy of Jesus. It is related, in point of religious aim and 
literary quality, to the canonical Mt. pretty much as the epistle 
of Barnabas is to Hebrews. 


(D) LUKE. 


LITERATURE.—(a) Editions t—Origen’s Homie in Lucam (mainly on 
chs. 1-4); Ambrose, Zxfosztio Evangelica (fourth century); Beda (eighth 
century); Theophylact (eleventh century); Cajetan (1543); Cornelius ἃ 
Lapide (1638, Eng. tr. of Luke, London, 1887); H. Pape (Leipzig, 1778); 
S Εἰ N. Morus (Leipzig, 1795); Stein (Halle, 1830); F. A. Bornemann’s 
Scholia (1830); Glockler (Frankfort, 1835); Olshausen (1837, Eng. tr. 
1863); Baumgarten-Crusius (Jena, 1845); Meyer (1846, Eng. tr. of fifth 
ed., Edin. 1880) ; de Wette® (1846); Trollope (London, 1847); Diedrich 


* Schwegler (Δ ΜΖ. i. 197 f.) also heard echoes in Jas 512 and 2 P 1", since 
the gospel, like the apocalypse of John, voiced the primitive Jewssh 
Christianity of the early church. Pfleiderer (U7c. ii. 160 f.), though regarding 
it as an independent form of the original Aramaic gospel, admits the presence 
of later legends. 

+ The legendary features are cruder than the naive stories, 2.9., of Mt 
17°4-27 2118f and 27°13; on the other hand, it has preserved a more accurate 
form of 235. The latter is more likely to be primitive than the correction ot 
the canonical text of Mt. by a well-informed editor, and it is not the only 
instance of good primitive tradition in the τὸ Lovdackdy. 

t The Greek comments of Eusebius (Czes.) and Cyril (Alex.) are extant 
only in fragments ; the latter is translated into English (ed. R. P. Smith, 
Oxford, 1859). 


262 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


(1864); J. J. Owen (New York, 1867); Bisping (1868); Burger (1868); A. 
Carr (1875); Jones and Cook (S/eaker’s Comm. 1878); E. H. Plumptre 
(Ellicott’s Comm. 1878) ; Hofmann (1878) ; Oosterzee (Lange’s Bibel- Werk‘, 
1880); van Doren (New York, 1881); Fillion (Paris, 1882); Schanz 
(1883)* ; Farrar (CG7. 1884); M. F. Sadler (1886); Godet* (1888, Eng. 
tr. of second ed. 1881); T. M. Lindsay (Edin., n. d.); J. Bond (1890); 
Hahn (Breslau, 1892-4)*; J. Weiss * (— Meyer’, 1892); Knabenbater 
(Paris, 1895); Plummer (JCC. 1896 and foll. ed.); Blass, Zvangelium 
secundum Lucam (1897); Nosgen? (Strack-Zockler, 1897) ; Riezler (Brixen, 
1900); A. Wright (1900); B.-Weiss (— Meyer®, 1901); Adeney (C2. 
1901); Girodon (Commentaire critique et moral, Paris, 1903); Wellhausen * 
(1904) ; V. Rose, L’évangile selon S. Luc (Paris, 1904); Merx, 2226 Euglien 
Marcus u. Lukas nach der Syrischen im Sinatkloster gefund. Palimpsest- 
handschrift erlautert. (1905)*; J. M. S. Baljon (1908)*; A. S. Walpole 
(1910). 

(6) Studies—B. L. K6nigsmann, De /fontibus commentariorum Luca 
(1798); Schleiermacher, aber die Schriften des Lucas (1 Theil, 1817, Eng. 
tr. 1828, with preface by Thirlwall) ;! Mill, Zhe Hist. Char. of St. Luke's 
Gospel (1841); J. Grimm, Die Einheit des Lucas-Euglms (1863) ; G. Meyer, 
Les Sources de ['év. de L. (Toulouse, 1868); Renan, v. (ch. xiii.); Keim, i. 
98f.; Scholten, das Faulinische Evglm, Kritische Unters. d. Ev. nach Lucas, 
etc. (Germ. ed., Redepenning, 1881) ; Stockmeyer, ‘ Quellen des Lk-Evglms’ 
(ZSchw., 1884, 117-149); C. Campbell, Crétical Studies in St. Luke's 
Gospel (1890, on Ebionitism, demonology, etc.) ; Feine, Eine vorkanonische 
Ueberlieferung des Lukas (1891)* ; Bebb (DBZ. iii. 162-173); Pfleiderer, 
Ure. ii. 98-190, 280f.); P. C. Sense, Origin of Third Gospel (1901); 
E. C. Selwyn, Luke the Prophet (1901); A. B. Bruce, Kingdom of God® 
(1904) * ; J. Haussleiter, Die Misstonsgedanke im Evgim des Lukas (1905) ; 
B. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukaseuvglms (1908)*; A. Wright (DCG. ii. 


84-91). 


§ 1. Zhe Preface.—Blass (Philology of Gospels, 1898, 1-20); 
Abbott (2 81. 1789-90). 

Luke’s gospel and its sequel are addressed to a certain 
Theophilus. This is a genuine proper name, not an imaginary 
nom de guerre for the typical catechumen, nor a conventional 
title for the average Christian reader. Nothing is known of 
Theophilus, except what may be inferred from Luke’s language, 
viz. that he was not simply an outsider interested in the faith, but 
(κατηχήθης, cp. Ac 18% 212!) a Christian who desired or required 
fuller acquaintance with the historic basis of the Christian gospel ; 
also that, as κράτιστε implies (cp. Ac 2326 248 2635), he was a man 
of rank. Luke’s emphasis on the relation between Christianity 
and the Roman empire, and his stress upon the hindrances and 


1 Criticised by Planck in an essay, De Luce evang. analyst critica quam 
Schleiermacher proposuit (Gottingen, 1819). 


LUKE 263 


temptations of money,* would tally with the hypothesis that his 
friend belonged to the upper and official classes; but beyond 
these inferences lies the land of fancy. 

Luke’s method is historical, but his object, like that of John 
(20%1), is religious. He makes no claim, however, to be an eye- 
witness. All he professes is to write a correct, complete, and 
chronological (in the sense of well-arranged, or logical) account 
of the primitive παράδοσις as received from the first generation 
of disciples. This attempt was neither new nor superfluous. 
Luke had numerous predecessors in the enterprise, but their 
work did not satisfy his purpose, and he resolved to make a 
fresh essay. He makes no claim to be inspired (contrast the 
ἔδοξε κἀμοί with the ἔδοξεν πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν of Ac 1538); 
his qualifications are simply the pains he had taken to acquaint 
himself (ἀκριβῶς) with the contents of the παράδοσις. Whatever 
his success was, his historical aim and method contrast favour- 
ably with the easy-going practice of his pagan contemporary, Q. 
Curtius Rufus (vii. 8. 11, utcunque sunt tradita incorrupta 
perferemus ; 1x. 1. 34, equidem plura transcribo quam credo). 
Luke did not rest his narrative on unsifted traditions. 

(a) The dedication proves that the compilers of early Christian gospels, 
among whom Luke ranks himself, drew upon the παραδόσεις of eye-witnesses 
and primitive evangelists, but that the latter did not write down their informa- 
tion. ‘The drawing up of narratives, it is implied, followed the oral stage. 
As Luke’s writings show, he availed himself not simply of the written 
composition of his predecessors (e.g. Mk. and Q), but of oral tradition. 

(4) The preface or dedication not only is modelled on the conventional 
lines of ancient literature, but shows if not an acquaintance with similar 
passages in medical treatises, ¢.g. that of Dioskorides περὶ ὑλῆς ἰατρικῆς (cp. 
Lagarde’s Mztthezlungen, 111. 355 f. ; Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, 
86f.; J. Weiss, etc.), at any rate a medical flavour.t Thus, ἀκριβῶς 


* The so-called ‘Ebionitism’ of Luke arises partly from his sources, 
several of which apparently reflected the suffering, poor churches of 
Palestine (A.D. 40-70), and partly from the familiar diatribé-themes of con- 
temporary Stoicism. The tone of the relevant passages (cp. O. Holtzmann’s 
War Jesus Ekstatiker, pp. 16f.) is that of James’ epistle, curiously ascetic and 
more than suspicious of wealth. 

+ Beck (Der Prolog des Lukas Evglm, 1901) e.g. argues from ἐν ἡμῖν 
that Luke was one of the Emmaus-disciples, and Theophilus a rich tax- 
collector of Antioch who met Luke, Philip, and Paul at Czesarea, whither he 
had accompanied Herod and Bernice. 

ὁ Thumb (Die Griechische Sprache im Zettalter des Hellentsmus, 1901, 
225-226) contends that the linguistic parallels with Dioskoricdes and 
Hippokrates (pref. to Περὲ ἀρχαίης ἰατρικῆς, ὁκόσοι ἐπεχείρησαν περὶ ἰητοικῇς 


264 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


παρακολουθεῖν is a phrase of Galen (Prognat. ii. 13, Theriac. ad Pisonem, 2), 
and in his preface to the latter work he writes, καὶ τούτον σοι τὸν περὶ τῆς 
θηριακῆς λόγον, ἀκριβῶς ἐξετάσας ἅπαντα, ἄριστε Πίσων σπουδαίως ἐποίησα. 
Luke’s preface therefore hints that the writer is not only composing a 
literary work, but familiar with medical phraseology. It is the first piece of 
evidence for the correctness of the tradition (see below) that he was Luke, 
the Greek physician who was in touch with Paul during his later life. 

(c) Polybius similarly (iv. 1-2) explains that he begins his main history 
at 220-216 B.C., since he was thus able ‘‘to speak as an eye-witness of 
several of the events” of the periods, ‘‘as well as from the information of 
those who were eye-witnesses of other events. To go further back and write 
the report of a report (ὡς ἀκοὴν ἐξ ἀκοῆς γράφειν) seemed to me an insecure 
basis for conclusions or for assertions.” Luke would have also agreed with 
the further reason of Polybius, ‘‘ Above all, I started at this point, inasmuch 
as the whole world’s history entered upon a new phase at this period.” 


§ 2. Outline and contents.—After the preface (1!), the gospel 
falls into four sections: (a) The first (15-418) describes the 
birth of John and of Jesus (15-29), the boyhood of Jesus (22-52), 
the preliminary mission of John (31:29) and his baptism of Jesus 
(3215), the genealogy of the latter (3738) and his temptation 
(41"18).* The second part (414-050) is devoted to the Galilean 
mission.t The third section (951--τ 27) brings Jesus to Jerusalem 
after a series of journeys through Samaria and elsewhere. The 
closing part (1928-24) covers the same ground as the corre- 
sponding sections in Mk. and Mt., though with characteristic 
omissions and additions. { 

Luke’s relation to the Marcan order is of primary significance 
in an estimate of his work. Between Mk τ and Mk 178 he inserts 
an even fuller account of John’s preaching (374) than Mt. (37!) ;§ 


λέγειν ἢ γράφειν) are too general, and that they only prove a knowledge of 
medical phraseology. On the coincidences with the prefaces and dedications 
of Josephus, see Krenkel’s Josephus u. Lukas, 50f. 

* On the Lucan handling of this tradition, cp. Bz. 4960-4961, and B. 
Weiss, Quellen d. Lukas Evglms, 100 f. 

+ The second and the third sections both open with a rejection of Jesus 
(418-80 ghl-86), 

Τ In the passion-narrative the resemblances with Ac 22-24 are very 
marked: both Jesus and Paul, according to Luke, were struck on the 
mouth before the Sanhedrim ; both were given up by the Jews to the Roman 
authorities ; both were accused of treason by the Sadducean priesthood, and 
loth were three times pronounced innocent. 

§ This is one case in which Mt. keeps much closer to Q than Luke (cp. 
Salmon’s Human Element in Gospels, 49f.); the latter, by changing the 
Pharisees and Sadducees into a vague crowd (cp. 739), fails to explain the point 
and sharpness of Tohn’s rebuke, 


LUKE 265 


he then follows Mk. down to 415 (- ΜΚ 115), but proceeds to 
insert a programmatic and proleptic account of the rejection 
of Jesus at Nazara (4.39). Returning, in 43, to the Marcan 
scheme (121-89), he stops at this point to insert a special version 
of Peter’s call (51:11), in place of the tradition (Mk 11620) which 
he had just omitted. The Marcan thread is followed again 
till 611 (=Mk 3°), where he reverses the position of the call 
of the twelve (6116=Mk 31519 6l7-19 = Mk 37-12), After this, 
Luke goes his own way for a while. Mk 41:25 is reproduced in 
8418; 319-21 picks up Mk 431-86 (another instance of reversed 
order), and 82-56 follows Mk 455-535; the parabolic teaching of 
426-29. 33-34 is entirely omitted, and 49°? is not used till 131819, 
In g!® Luke returns to Mk. (65-16), and the thread is on the 
whole followed in 9!%!7 (=Mk 6%-#). Then, omitting Mk 64— 
8°, with the exception of 8:118 and 81421, which are caught up in 
reverse order later (125456 1158-121), he follows Mk. (827-98) in 
918-86 (omitting Mk 9%}%), and on the whole in 937-50 (= Mk g!#4!), 
Mk 942-48 reappears afterwards in 171%, the salt-saying of 949? 
(like 101-12) never appears at all, and it is not till 18194 that the 
Marcan scheme (1018-94) is resumed (18-48 = Mk 1046-52), ὁ The 
narrative of the last days in Jerusalem then follows Mk. prety 
closely, though it omits{ Mk 111%14. 20-26 (fig-tree incident), 
1 321-28. 83-87 and 15160, reverses the order of Mk 141°! ( = 2221-28) 
and 142225 (= 2215-20), and makes a number of significant 
additions. 


Luke’s detailed chronology varies between vague notices of time and 
definite synchronisms which are generally more graphic than historical. 
Thus the birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus alike fell ‘in the days of 
Herod’ (15, cp. 2! ἐν rats ἡμέραις ἐκείναις) ; 8 he is now and then precise 
ΠΡΟΣ days) (1° 27> * 46) efc:)>) months|||) (1°*' “Ὁ; yearsi(24, ΟΡ. 3.5). or 
even hours (2%, cp, 10% 2259), and he attempts at one place an elaborate 
sixfold synchronism (in 3%, with which the sixfold date of the Thebans’ 
entry into Platzea, in Thuc. ii, 2, has been compared). He knows that the 


* Which Mk. reserves till 6!®. Hence the anachronism of Lk 4%. 

+ On the neglect of the Marcan source in 9-184, cp. Sir J. C. Hawkins 
in ET. xiv. 18f., gof., 137 f. 

1 The anointing in Bethany (Mk 1453) had been already used in 7*-50, 

§ Cp. 1 613 (ἐν τ. ἡμ. ταύται5). 

|| Apart from the ritual (Gal 419), the OT (Ja 5!”), and the apocalyptic 
references (in Apoc. Joh.), μήν, in its literal sense, is used only by Lk. of all 
the NT writers. 

This ὡσεί is not uncommon in Luke’s chronoJogical notices (cp. 8% 91" 5 
22” 23“, Ac 24! and elsewhere). 


266 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


call of twelve disciples took place * i the morning (012.18) after a night of 

prayer. On the other hand, his connections are often vague; 4... ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς 

(74), ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς (81), ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς ἡμέρᾳ (937). As a rule, he follows Mark, 

e.g. in 4! 43!-44_527f 61 (adding the enigmatic δευτεροπρώτῳ) and 68 (= ΜΚ 3}), - 
though now and then he loosely uses ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν (517 8*%*—where, like 

Mt 833, he departs from Mark 4%°—20!), or phrases like ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ (13}) 

and ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ (13°! 201°), 


All. through, whenever he leaves Mk., and even sometimes 
when he follows him, we have therefore to distinguish between a 
sequence which is apt enough in an edifying homily or ina 
catechetical manual, but unlikely to be historical.t Thus Lk. 
arranges the temptation in 4118 so as to avoid the abrupt change 
from the desert to the temple, and at the same time in order to 
produce a climax; he also inserts 7117 in order to prepare the 
way for 722 (νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται. His work is full of these 
deliberate transitions and re-arrangements which were already a 
feature of the primitive synoptic tradition even in Mk. 

§ 3. Sources and structure.—Besides Mk. and Q, the sources 
used by Luke (1!4) in composing his gospel, so far as they 
were written, may have provided him with material for 15-25%, 
9°l_1814, and some passages elsewhere, especially in the passion- 
narrative ; but he has worked over them so thoroughly that it is 
rarely possible to distinguish their number or even their nature. 

(a) 15-252, cp. Hillmann (/PZ., 1891, 192-261), Badham 
(ZT. viii. 116-119, defence of integrity), Zimmermann (5 Δ΄, 
1901, 415-458, 2214. 1903, 247-290), Hilgenfeld (ZIVT., 1900, 
177-235, 1901, 313-318), Schmiedel (2.81. 2954f.), Usener 
(EBi. 3441f.), ρα (ZVW, 1906, 281-317, ‘Die 
Chronologischen Notizen und die Hymnen in Le τ und 2’), 
R. J. Knowling (DCG. i. 202 f.), Clemen (Religionsgeschichtliche 
Erklirung des NT, 1909, pp. 223f.), and Ὁ. Volter (77, 
1910, 289-334, ‘Die Geburt des Taiifers Johannes und Jesu 
nach Lukas’). 

The stylistic data of 15-252 permit of three hypotheses: (i.) 
the use of a Palestinian Jewish-Christian Greek or Aramaic 

* Other morning incidents, peculiar to Luke, are 5!" (cp. 5°) 2157 22% 
and 23". 

+ J. F. Blair in’ Zhe Apostolic Gospel (pp. 7£.) rightly notes Luke’s 
arrangement of sayings and stories as an illustration of this; e.g. Lk 7% is 
an example of 7#, Lk 10% (the captious νομοδιδάσκαλος) and 10%% (Mary 


the receptive) of 107, For other cases of editorial motive, see Westcott’s 
Introd. to Study of Gospels, pp. 393f. 


LUKE 267 


(Bruce, Zimmermann, Plummer, Wright) source, which Luke 
has revised and incorporated ; * (ii.) the free composition of the 
section, in archaic style, by Luke himself; or (111.) its later 
insertion. The marked change of style and diction, as the gospel 
passes from 1‘ to 15 and, though less markedly, from 2°? to 31, and 
the Hebraistic phenomena of 15-25, together with the Lucan 
characteristics which emerge in 215-20. 41-52 (Harnack, SBA4Z., 
1900, pp. 538-566) and elsewhere (Zimmermann, pp. 250 f.), are 
best met by the first of the three hypotheses, in its translation-form. 


It requires too arbitrary handling of the text to disentangle from 15-2"? 
and 3", under a double Christian redaction (e.g. in 12658 and 17), a 
Jewish apocalypse of Zechariah (Vélter, 77., 1896, 244-269; N. Schmidt, 
£Bi. i. 936), which is mentioned in the stichometry of Nikephorus and 
elsewhere, or to detect a Jewish-Christian interpolation (so Usener, Das 
Weihnachtsfest, 1889, 122f. ; Gercke, Neue Jahrb. fiir d. klass. Alterth., 
1901, 187) in 3% as well as in Mt 111 (for Lk 1-2, cp. Corssen in GGA., 
1899, 326f.). 


The main drawback to (ii.), #.e. to the theory that the author 
himself produced the archaic Semitic style by means of a 
conscious art (so, ¢.g., Pfleiderer and Harnack, BVT. i. 199 f.), 
apart from the fact that the so-called Lucan characteristics 
are almost wholly derived from the LXX, is the difficulty of 
imagining how a Gentile Christian like Luke could throw himself 
back, by a supreme effort of the historical imagination, to the 
standpoint of these chapters (cp. Sanday, £7. xiv. 296f.; Zahn, 
INT. iii. 112f., and Stanton in GHD. ii. 223 f.). When the 
section is viewed as Luke’s translation-Greek, and as embodying 
some primitive document, not as a piece of free composition, 
15-252 with 32328 represent an early Palestinian source which 
Luke has worked over, perhaps inserting, e.g., the references to the 
decree (2!) ¢ and the virgin-birth (174%), with the ὡς ἐνομίζετο of 
3°5. He probably translated the source himself from Aramaic. 
In spite of Dalman’s scepticism ( Worte Jesu, Eng. tr. pp. 38 f.) 
there is no reason why Luke should not have known Aramaic: 
and here as elsewhere there are fairly evident traces of a Semitic 
original (Briggs, Afessiah of Gospels, 41 f.; Wellhausen, Ein/. 35 f. ; 
Nestle, ZVW. vil. 260f.; Spittaa ZVW. vi. 293 f.; Wright, 
Zimmermann, Jiilicher, etc.). 


*SoJ. G. Machen, Princeton Review (1906), 48-49. 
7 The chronological notices cannot claim to be more than vague, popula: 
synchronisms (cp. Spitta, of. εἶ. p. 300). 


268 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


It is no objection to argue (Hilgenfeld, etc.) that references to the Davidic 
throne and reign (1533), the righteousness of works (18 2% etc.), and the 
obligations of the law (2533), could not have come from the pen of Luke the 
Paulinist, but must have been added by a redactor who was responsible for 
the songs, etc. To bea friend or companion of Paul was not equivalent to 
sharing all his particular theological opinions (see below under Acts) ; Luke’s 
historic sense was sufficient to prevent him from suppressing such features in 
the interests of doctrine; and, even upon Hilgenfeld’s peculiar thesis, the 
redactor was himself a Paulinist ! 

One object of the source was to represent John the Baptist as emphatically 
the forerunner and inferior of Jesus—the same motive which re-appears in 
Ac 18-19 as well as in the Fourth gospel. This tradition, with its juxta- 
position of the two births, met the tendency in some circles to aggrandise 
the prestige of John (cp. J. R. Wilkinson, 4 Johannine Document in the 
First Chapter of S. Luke's Gospel, 1902). This leads to the first of the three 
problems of textual and literary criticism in the section. (a) Was the virgin- 
birth originally part of the source, or even of Luke’s version? The 
hypothesis * that 1% represents an interpolation in the text (so, 4.9.» 
Hillmann, Volter, Holtzmann, Conybeare, Usener, Harnack: ZV/V., 1991, 
53-57, Schmiedel, Pfleiderer, Grill, N. Schmidt, J. Weiss, Loisy, Montefiore) 
rests entirely on internal evidence. When these verses are omitted, it is 
claimed, the context (2.4. to ν. 33, and from ν.36) runs smoothly. Jesus is 
announced as destined to be born to Joseph, a descendant of David (so ἐξ 
οἴκου Δαυείδ must be taken in 17 in the light of 1°78? and 24) and Mary. 
The application of-yoveis to Joseph and Mary, and of πατήρ to Joseph, does 
not give the slightest hint of any merely adoptive relationship between Joseph 
and Jesus, and such a connection is not suggested by the episode of the 
Baptist’s birth. Mary is a virgin when the angel announces the birth of a 
son and (a messianic scion) to her (137) ; 2.6. as a betrothed maiden, presently 
to be married (in less than a year), she is promised this gift of God in her 
married life. The marriage is taken for granted, as in Is 74, After this, 
the sequence of 155 (How shall this be, since I know not a man?) is held to 
be abrupt. Hitherto the angelic promise referred simply to her future as a 
married woman, and the difficulty of this question, unmotived by what 
precedes, is not to be explained by her maidenly consciousness or confusion 
at the announcement. Furthermore, the words are as real an expression of 
incredulity as those of Zachariah (118) ; yet the latter is punished for unbelief, 
while Mary is praised for her faith (1%), This eulogium is hard to understand ¢ 


* Hicker’s (ZWT7., 1906, 18-60) inclusion (so Spitta and Montefiore) of 
8-37 in the interpolation has this inits favour, that it gets rid of the supposed 
miraculous inference in 57, Β, Weiss confines the interpolation to **, 

¢ The substitution of * for *, and the omiss‘on of * after 57, in is too 
slender a basis, and may have been accidental, whilst the alleged omission 
of * from the Protevunyelium Jacobi breaks down upon examination (cp. 
Headlam’s discussion with Conybeare in the Guardian for March-April 1903). 

t On the other hand, it is precarious to argue that Mary’s subsequent sur- 
prise (219. 88, 5) would be inconsistent with the revelation given her in τ 5 35, and 
ihat therefore either the latter passage, or the whole of ch. 2, is an interpolation, 


LUKE 269 


in view of 1%, for the question there is surely more than an involuntary 
cry of surprise, unless we are to resort to conjecture (so W. C. Allen, 
Interpreter, 1905, pp. 121f.) and assume an unrecorded indication of some- 
thing unique in the conception. An alternative modification of the inter- 
pvlation-hypothesis would be simply to omit ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω from 153 
(so Kattenbusch, d fost. Symbol, ii. 623 ; Merx ; Weinel, ZVW., 1001, 37f. ; 
L. Kohler, ZSchw, 1902, 220f.) on the ground that the conception by the 
Holy Spirit does not necessarily exclude human paternity (Joseph’s agency 
being taken as a matter of course, like that of Zachariah), and also because 
Mary’s cry of surprise then relates to the career of her son, and not to the 
method of his conception. But it is the latter which is the point of 15, 
whereas in the source (z.e. up to πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο) the surprise and hesitation 
are motived by the fact that Mary and Joseph were of humble origin. 

The arzument therefore is that 1°*% can be removed, not only without 
impairing, but actually with the result of improving, the context.* If the 
allusion to virginity (177) and the absence of any subsequent mention of 
marriage are taken as implying 1°**°, it is open to the critic either to regard 
παρθένος as interpolated by the author of 1°4% (so Harnack), or to suppose 
that the redactor omitted the mention of the marriage and subsequent con- 
ception (Usener). The double mention of π., however, and its vital con- 
nection with the sentence, render the former hypothesis less probable,f while 
the latter seems unnecessary in view of 2° (with Mary his wife). Here τῇ 
ἐμνηστευομένῃ αὐτῷ οὔσῃ ἐγκύῳ is correctly interpreted by the early glossarial 
addition of γυναικί after αὐτῷ (AC? A A, 1, q*, Syr?, vulg., goth., eth.) teven 
if one is indisposed to admit γυναικί as the original reading (e.g. Hacker, 
53-54), on the ground that its alteration into ἐμν. is more likely than the 
Ebionitic change of ἐμν. into γυναικί. The sole reason for Mary’s presence 
with Joseph was the fact of her marriage to him. 

The style of **® is fairly Lucan, though διό occurs only once in the third 
gospel and ἐπεί never. If it be an interpolation, it is due either to Luke or 
to a redactor who wrote ® on the basis of 131-32 and Mt 118, with 4 as its 
prelude. The main difficulty in the way of the Lucan authorship is not so 
much the silence of Acts on the virgin-birth as the discrepancy between 
1-3 and a passage like 3°, where the Lucan reading undoubtedly was 
vids μου εἶ au” σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε (so, é.2., Corssen; Usener, Wethnachts- 
fest, 40-50 ; Harnack, BNT. ii. 310-314; cp. Resch, Agrapha, 346 f., 365 f., 
and faralleltexte, iii. 20-24). At all events, the insertion must have been 
made, for harmonistic purposes, prior to the formation of the gospel-canon. § 


* Note how the omission, ¢.g., lessens the gap between the ἰδοὺ συλλήμψῃ 
of 31: and the καὶ (60)’E. ἡ συγγ. o. k. αὐτὴ συνείληφεν of 35, 

¢ Cp. Bardenhewer, BZ (1905), p. 158 

ὦ SyrS substitutes γ. for ἐμνηστ. (so a, ὁ, c, ff?=uxore sua). 

§ Zimmermann (SX., 1903, 273f.) attributes the interpolation to Luke 
himself, who, in translating his Aramaic Jewish-Christian source of the 
nativity (which described only a natural birth), added 14% (hence the Spirit 
as masculine, not—as in Semitic—feminine), altered 157 and 2°in order to make 
Mary merely the betrothed of Joseph, not his wife, inserted the erroneous 
chronology of 312, the parenthesis of 2355, the mistranslation in 2” (αὐτῶν), 


270 THE HISTORICAI LITERATURE 


Against this,* it is argued that the deletion of vv.34* does not leave the 
answer of v.*8 with the same wealth and depth of meaning ; such a resigned 
acceptance of God’s will would be much less likely than a glad rejoinder in 
the case of any Jewish maiden who, after her betrothal, was told that her 
eldest child would be the messiah. The tremor, in the other case, is natural. 
It is scarcely fair to find an absolute discrepancy between Elizabeth’s praise 
of Mary’s faith (v.“) and the very natural and momentary hesitation of v.%4, 
It is the almost immediate repression of her doubt and the resigned 
words of ® which justify her cousin's eulogy (cp. Halévy in RS., 1902, 
328 f.). On the other hand, the further argument that the omission of the 
virgin-birth throws the narrative out of balance, by leaving no contrast 
between Zachariah and Joseph, is parily met by the relegation of the mag- 
nificat to Elizabeth, and by the consideration that the story, unlike that of 
Matthew, is written from Mary’s point of view. 

It 1* is retained, the term vids θεοῦ there, as in 357, sugcests the idea of 
Jesus as the second Adam, whose birth or creation renders him Son of God. 
Justin (Dza/. 109), who employs the Lucan tradition, expands this analogy 
by contrasting Eve and Mary, pointing out that by Jesus ‘‘God destroys the 
Serpent, and those angels and men who resemble him, whereas he works 
deliverance from death for those who repent of their evils and believe on 
him.” But, in view of Paul’s conception of the second Adam, the inde- 
pendence of human parentage is not necessary. 

An Egyptian ostrakon preserves a hymn to Mary, the second part of which, 
reproducing the matter of Lk 18° presents some variations from the Lucan 
text, ¢.g., the absence of 1°87 and the conception of Mary at the moment 
of the theophany. The text is too corrupt, however, to be relied on, and in 
any case it has no claim to be regarded as superior (so Reitzenstein, Zwed 
religionsgeschichtlichen Fragen, 1901, 112-131) to the Lucan account. Even 
in the latter this idea of Mary’s conception as due to a divine utterance t 
has occasionally been found by some critics ; this is not Luke’s view, but, 
apart from this altogether, chronologically and intrinsically the Lucan story 
takes precedence of the Egyptian fragment. 

(8) A second equally complex problem is started by the criticism of the 
songs. Here, also, a number of the characteristic terms of these songs in 
Lk 1-2 may be shown to come from the LXX, while, on the other hand, 


and, in fact, the whole of 2-3, Zimmermann consequently identifies Luke 
with Hilgenfeld’s ‘ Pauline interpolator’ whose hand is seen in 155. 76-79 He 
precariously identifies this Aramaic source with the βίβλος γενεσέως of Mt 1}. 

* The case against the interpolation is stated by Halévy (&S., 1902, 318- 
330, who holds, however, that Luke’s narrative was written to supplant 
Matthew’s), by Hilgenfeld, and by G. H. Box (ZVW., 1905, g1f., and 
DCG. ii. 804f.). 

+ The idea of 1® is Hellenic rather than Jewish. ‘‘Quant au fond 
méme de l’idce, il ne s’accorde pas mieux avec la théologie juive en ce qui 
fait Poriginalité propre de celle-ci, ἃ savoir la notion de la transcendance 
divine, qui ne permet guére de concevoir Dieu comme le principe générateur, 
physique et immédiat, dune vie humaine individuelle. En grec et poar 
esprit hellénique, ces embarras n’existeut pas ” (Loisy, i. 292). 


LUKE 271 


quite a number of them are specifically Lucan. On linguistic grounds alone 
it is impossible to determine whether the songs were adopted by Luke from 
some earlier source (so, é.g., Spitta) or whether he composed them himself 
in the archaic manner (Harnack), but it is best to regard them as part of the 
Aramaic source.* They are variously taken to echo the psalter and 1 § 2119 
(Hillmann, 201 f.; P. Haupt, Zeztschrift der d. Morgent. Gesellschaft, 1904, 
617-632), or Judith (Hilgenfeld), or the psalter of Solomon (cp. Ryle and 
James, The Psalms of Solomon, pp. xcif.). Any one of these derivations is pre- 
ferable to the intricate hypotheses of Spitta, who holds that the four hymns were 
originally independent of their present setting ; the gloria (215) and the couplet 
in 1955 are quotations from the same hymn; the magnificat + (cp. Holtzmann’s 
Fesigabe, 1902, 63 f.) was an Israelitish war-song of triumph; the psalm of 
Zachariah was composed of two separate pieces, one (*-75) on the appear- 
ance of Messiah, one (78) a prophetic outburst of Zachariah over his child ; 
while Luke took the songs of Mary, Zachariah, and Simeon from an early 
Christian collection. But this theory fails to account for the gloria, and the 
structure, ¢.g., of Zachariah’s song is, as Spitta himself (p. 309) admits, 
unexampled. 

It is the magnificat which presents the greatest difficulty. As the original 
text of 14° was καὶ εἶπεν (cp. Burkitt, Evang. Da-Meph. ii. 286), the problem 
is whether Μαριάμ or ᾿Ελισάβετ was the correct addition. The latter is read 
by three old Latin MSS (a, ὁ, re), and represents an early tradition vouched 
for by Niceta of Remesiana (who assumes in his De Psal/modie Bono that 
Elizabeth spoke the magnificat), which is apparently pre-Origenic (cp. 
Lommatzsch, v. 108 f., ‘non enim ignoramus quod secundum alios codices 
et hzec uerba Elisabet uaticinetur’) and even prior to Irenzeus (cp. iv. 7. 1, ‘sed 
et Elisabet ait, Magnificat anima mea dominum,’ ZV/V., 1906, 191-192). 
The internal evidence, it is argued, corroborates this early tradition. It is 
Elizabeth, not Mary, who is filled with the ecstatic spirit (1#1), and Luke was 
‘fond of inserting εἶπεν δὲ or καὶ εἶπεν between the specches of his characters 
without a change of speaker’ (Burkitt). Furthermore, the σὺν αὐτῇ of 1% 
suits Elizabeth as the previous speaker better than Mary, otherwise the 
reference would be to the mention of her in v.4. Then a phrase like ἐπέ- 
Brewer ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῆς δούλης αὐτοῦ is more congruous with Elizabeth’s 
release from long barrenness than with Mary’s situation. The whole question 
has been fully discussed, in favour of Elizabeth, by F. Jacobé (Loisy?) in 
RHALR. (1897) 424-432; Harnack (SBBA., 1900, 538-556), Volter, Conrady 
(Quelle der kan. Kindhettsgeschichte, 48-51), H. A. Késtlin (ZNW., 1902, 
142-145), Loisy (i. 303 f.), Schmiedel (#82. 2956-2957), F. C. Burkitt (in 
A. E. Burn’s Wiceta of Remesiana, 1905, pp. cliii-cliv; 7715. vii. 220 f.), 


* Cp. eg. F. Zorell’s study of the Hebrew or Aramaic rhythmical 
structure of the magnificat, in Zeztschrift fiir kath. Theologte (1905), 754-758. 
For the connection of the Lucan canticles with the prayers of the Jewish 
synagogue, see Chase, 7S. i. 3. 147-151. See, further, W. Steinfiihrer: Das 
Magnificat Luc. 1 identisch mit Fs. 103 (1908), and J. F. Wood (/J&Z., 
1902, 48-50). 

t According to Hilgenfeld, the magnificat was inserted like Lk 18-7 by 
the second Paulinist, who prefixed the birth-stories to the gospel. 


272 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


and Montefiore ; in favour of Mary, by A. Durand (22Z., 1898, 74-77), O. 
Bardenhewer (Avblische Staudten, vi. 1-2, 1901), Nilles (Zetts. f. kirchl. Theol. 
1903, 375 f.), Ladeuze (Revue a’historie ecclés., 1903, 623 f.), Ε΄ Jubaru, Za 
Magnificat expression réelle de Padme de Marte (Rome, 1905) ; F. P. Parisi, 
Zl Magnificat? (1905); Wordsworth (in Burn’s Nice¢a, pp. clv-clviii), A. E. 
Burn (DCG, ii. 101-103), and C. W. Emmet (2. χ.7 viii. 521-529), in 
addition to Spitta and Wernle (GGA., 1904, 516 f.). 

(y) The genealogy of Jesus in Lk 3%, unlike the theocratic and Jewish- 
Christian list of Mt 11%, ascends from Jesus to Adam, quite in the universalist 
spirit of Ac 17%, though, like that list, it is a genealogy of Josephus artifically 
drawn up. The concluding editorial touch (So of God) refers back * to 2”, 
especially when 155 are regarded as subsequent interpolations. Whether 
Luke translated it or not, a touch like the Kainan of 438 is taken from the 
LXX of Gn 10%, 


(iii.) The third hypothesis (Hilgenfeld, Usener), that 15-252 
are a subsequent addition to the gospel, is based on the argu- 
ment that the ἄνωθεν of the prologue excludes the birth-stories. 
The primitive apostolic tradition upon Jesus certainly started 
with an account of his baptism by John (Ac 131-22). and, if the 
prologue were interpreted in this light, it would usher in, not 
15-252 but 31, at which point the eye-zwitnesses of 1? could first 
vouch for the facts. On the other hand, τῶν πεπληροφορουμένων 
ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων need not be restricted to facts; matters of 
conviction among us would be as fair a rendering. No great 
stress can be put on the introduction of John as the son 
of Zachariah in 3? as if for the first time (see 510); this may 
be naturally explained as a sententious impressive allusion.t 
Nothing hangs on the addition to the two twelfth-century MSS 
of the Armenian version of Efraim’s commentary on the 
Diatessaron (Lucas autem initium fecit a baptismo Joannis, cp. 
Conybeare in ΖΗ, 1902, 192-197); for, apart from the 
lateness and obscurity of the fragment in question, Efraim 
must have read Lk 1-2 in his copy of the Diatessaron. The 
elaborate chronological data of 31-2 indeed seem more in keeping 
with the beginning (1%) of a story than as the introduction even 
to an important epoch, and the presumption in favour of the 
baptism as the starting-point of the gospel is corroborated by 


* This explains why Luke has placed the genealogy so late ; he reserved 
this part of his source till he could prepare for it by the baptism at which 
Jesus, according to the primitive view, became Son of God. But ἀρχόμενος 
does not refer to the beginning of this divine sonship (Spitta). 

+ Similarly the repetition of Joseph, Mary, and Nazareth in 2“ simply 
resumes 1°27; it does not imply that two sources lie side by side. 


LUKE 273 


Ac 1}, which defines it as an account of a// that Jesus began both 
to do and to teach. It suggests, especially in view of 122, that 
the original tradition opened (as in Mk.) with the baptism, 
but it does not necessarily exclude such introductory matter as 
the poetical birth-narratives of 1-2; the latter were cognate tc 
the subject and scope of 3}, they were preliminary notices 
leading up to (cp. 18° with 3”) the historical traditions.* 

(4) 9°!-18%4 is not a travel-narrative ; although it contains 
some incidents of travel (951-56. 57-62 7 o38f. 1 322f. 1 425f. ;711f) these 
do not dominate the general situation. It is not a Perean source ; 
there is a certain thread in the stories of the Samaritan village 
(951-56), the good Samaritan (10%87), and the Samaritan leper 
(1711-19), but no geographical connection is visible. Although it 
may be inferred from Mk 10! and Mt 1g! that Luke meant to 
locate some of this material in Perea, the setting and the juxta- 
position of the contents are topical and literary, not chrono- 
logical, He begins with a mirror for Christian missionaries 
(9°!—1042 centring round the mission of the 70): how they are 
to behave towards incivil people (95!), how they must be whole- 
hearted (95), how they are to carry out their mission (1015), 
and how they are to be received (10%8).¢ Then follows a little 
group of sayings on prayer (111-18), The next groups, with any 
unity, occur in 12158 (duties of fearlessness, disinterestedness 
and unworldliness, and watchfulness in the Christian mission) 
and in 1254-1385 (addressed to ὄχλοι, on repentance). Another 
(11874) group of dinner-sayings follows (14!%);{ 1425 recalls 
gf; 15 (cp. Hilgenfeld, ZZ, 1902, 449-464) defends the 
graciousness of the gospel against Jewish cavilling (cp. 15% 28) ; 
161-1719 are a loose§ collection of sayings upon various social 

* If λόγος in 15 were not=the Christian preaching, and if ὡσεί in 37 
were not=adout, instead of as zf, there might be some reason for adopting 
Corssen’s theory (GGA., 1899, pp. 310 f.) that the personal logos appeared 
at first on earth in the baptism (3%), and that αὐτόπται and ὑπηρέται should 
be taken together, with τοῦ λόγου in the Johannine sense adumbrated in 
Ac 10% 1335. δ, 

{ τοῦ ΣΤ has no connection with what precedes and very little with what 
follows. On the whole arrangement of this section, see Wernle, Syn. Frage, 
99 f.; Pfleiderer, Ure. ii. 138 f. 

Δ The transference of 141** toa place between 13% and 13% (cp. Blair’s 
Apostolic Gospel, pp. 212 f.) has several points in its favour. The table-talk, 
which is a feature of Luke, reflects the Greek symposium-dialogues. 

§ E. Rodenbusch (ZVW., 1903, 243 f., ‘Die Komposition von Lucas 16’) 
deletes 1617 as a gloss ; Soltau (ZVW., 1909, 230-238) restores the original 

18 


274 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


telationships ; 1720-188 is on the general theme of the parousia ; " 
and 18°14 would follow ® better than 18°. Thus the section is 
neither (so Schaarschmidt, SX., 1909, 12-28) a fragment of 
some independent gospel, which covers (though with more 
definiteness in its setting) the same ground as Mt 12!5—245!= 
Mk 37-1387, nor an independent source (P. Ewald, Renan, 
Burton), nor (Wendt) a block of material from Q which Luke 
has inserted here (as in 67°83), but (cp. Wright, WZ Problems, 
23-29) a collection of sayings and stories, partly drawn from 
special traditions of the Judean ministry of Jesus, partly from 
Q, and partly even from Mark. Luke, who elsewhere shows 
a knowledge of the Judean traditions, was too dependent on 
the Marcan outline to be able to find any chronological place 
for them; since he had no independent knowledge, eg., of 
the Judean ministry, beyond what came from his Palestinian 
(Jerusalemite or Bethlehemite) sources here as in 1-2, he inserted 
them and the rest of his material in the only available gap 
offered by the Marcan outline. 

(c) In the passion-narrative, especially at and after the last 
supper, Luke sits more loose than ever to Mark; but even 
when a source may be postulated, it does not follow that it 
was Q. Luke makes much less of the cleansing of the temple 
(1948) than Mark or even Matthew; it does not excite the 
authorities to immediate action, and their interference (20!) is 
not cnly separated from it by a vague interval, but motived by 
his teaching rather than his actions. This is another of the 
approximations to the standpoint of the Fourth gospel,{ where 
the cleansing is removed entirely from the last days at Jerusalem. 
The same softening of the revolutionary traits in Jesus re-appears 
in the remarkable addition of 225! to the synoptic account of 
Peter’s attack on the servant of the high priest. No source need 


order thus : 152-2 170-2) 3-4. (6-6). 7-10. 11-19, 20-87 761-8 γ81-8 1619-31. 9-15 189-14 with 
1618-18 and 171-2: 5-6 as insertions from Matthew. But even 16! is composite ; 
16(%5) 27 does not flow from the preceding story (cp. Colle in SA., 1902, 
652 f.) 

* Conceived here, as in 11“ and 197, ‘als Tag der Rache an den 
christusfeindlichen Juden’ (Wellhausen). 

+ Cp. Burkitt’s Zransmission, 134 f., and DCG. ii. pp. 750f. 

+ See also the Satanic suggestion of Judas (228 = Jn 13%). These and 
other ‘Johannine’ phenomena of Luke are either due to the use of the latter 
in the Fourth gospel (see below), or the result of a common use by both 
authors of an independent source (so Zimmermann, SA., 1903, 586-605). 


LUKE 275 


be postulated for these Lucan touches any more than for the 
additions in 2228" (talk at supper), 23278! (on way to Calvary), 
23°9-43 (dying robber), 2413: (Emmaus story, etc.);* for these 
Luke only required some oral tradition to start him; the Herod- 
scene (23°12),7 like 13%!%, probably came from a source or 
sources connected with Joanna and Chuza (cp. 15 3) 19 83 979, 
Ac 13!), but it is hazardous to connect this with the tradition of 
the virgin-birth. 


Accretions are specially numerous in the closing chapters. The most 
notable are the ‘ Pauline’ interpolations of 221%? into the original text $ as 
preserved in D (cp. HA 7. 653 f.; Burkitt, να, Da-Meph. ii. 300 f.), and 
the legendary insertion ὃ of 224-# (which in some MSS of the Ferrar-group is 
placed, by conformation, after Mt 26%) ; 23°4 (cp. Harnack, SBBA., 1901, 
255 f.; WNT. 654; Resch, TU. x. 3. 721 f.) is, like Jn 7°°-8", probably 
a non-Lucan fragment of genuine tradition which has floated in to this section 
of the gospel, although there are almost as strong arguments for its omission 
from the original, apart from the difficulty of seeing why neither Mt. nor Mk. 
received the honour of its addition. 2415, besides being textually suspect, 
contains two words peculiar to Lk. and Jn. (20°) among the gospel-writers 
(ὀθόνιον and παρακύπτω) ; breaks awkwardly into the flow of the story ; and, 
like Jn 20% 8, implies that Peter did not believe although he saw the empty 
tomb, Furthermore, the emphasis on Peter alone (cp. 241} 2415) contradicts 
24%, The insertion of the passage (condensed from Jn 20%!) is probably 
to be attributed to some harmonistic editor, or to the Asiatic presbyters, as 
a reply to the natural objection—why did not some of the apostles go to the 


* The Emmaus-tale, which does not fit in well with 247) and 24%, 
might be taken from a special source ; as it stands, 245: (which Merx deletes) 
does not tally with the agitation of 243, The materialising of the resurrection- 
stories in 24% (cp. Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 143 f.) is quite Lucan, 
however (cp. the realism of 37"), though the realism is no mark of veracity 
(Hoffmann, ZW7., 1909, 332 f.). 

+ Cp. Verrall (/77S., 1909, 321-353) and Abbott (Dzat. 3183). 

+ Blass (SX., 1896, 773 f.) and Wellhausen further omit 22), which Zahn 
(JN. iii. pp. 39 f.) transfers to a place after v.!®and before ν. 7, The case for 
the larger reading is best put by Jiilicher (7%A. 235 f.) and Salmon (Human 
Element in Gospels, 492f.). According to H. E. D. Blakiston (/7S., 
1903, 548-555), 2214-5 is a conflation of two distinct stories (L=22!4-1® 21, 
S =221*°), the latter existing in two forms(Paul, Luke: Mk. Mt.). ‘* Paul’s — 
account is the oldest in its present form and also the simplest. It appears 
to be a slightly condensed form of S, as quoted from memory; and S may 
have been in Paul’s time not a document at all but an oral narrative in- 
corporated in an inchoate liturgy.” Luke conflates L and S, using Mk. 
who had already absorbed a part of L. This theory simplifies the problem 
in one direction, but only complicates it in others ; it fails, ¢.g., to explain 
why Luke omitted the second mention of the bread. 

§ Defended as original by Harnack (SB&A., 1901, 251 f.). 


276 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


tomb and see for themselves? or to a sense that v.™ required some such 
episode. The reasons for its subsequent insertion are upon the whole stronger 
than those urged (e.g. by Blair, Apostolic Gospel, 385 f.; E. A. Abbott, Déat. 
1798-1804, and Merx) for the likelihood that it would be omitted. Similar 
harmonistic insertions occur in 24°%% 4 δὲ (καὶ ἀνεφέρετο els τ. op.) and 
53 (προσκυν. αὐτόν). The two latter, at any rate, may have belonged to the 
original text, however, being omitted by a later scribe or editor who wished 
to bring the gospels more into line (cp. Grife, SA., 1888, 524-534), perhaps 
by the author of D, who also changed the λέγοντας of 34% into λέγοντες, in 
order to harmonise it with Mk 1644, 


Luke is thus a compiler and redactor of previous sources or 
traditions, though his functions are larger than those of the editors 
who finally put together the Hexateuch. Allowance must be 
made for his freedom of composition, as in Acts, but the primary 
feature of his work is its power of selection and collocation. “1 
the evangelist can be appropriately described as a painter, 
according to ancient tradition, on account of the pictorial art 
displayed in some of his narratives, he may be compared with 
equal propriety to a gardener on account of his arrangement of 
the logia. His two digressions [1.6. 612-88, 9°!-1814] are beds of 
transplanted flowers, arranged with some degree of skiil, and 
fragrant in their beauty ; but as no observer can argue from the 
appearance of a flower to the soil in which at first it grew, so aiso 
the desire of the critic to find for the logia their original context 
appears to be utterly hopeless” (Blair, Zhe Apostolic Gospel, 157%. 
For this reason, the attempts to reconstruct a special source, 
running all through the gospel, whether Ebionitic (so, e.g., Keim, i. 
τοι f., and Schmiedel, 2.81. 1855-1856)* or not, are less success- 
ful than the hypothesis that Luke, in addition to Q and Mark, 
drew upon a number of more or less fragmentary sources, written 
and oral. 


Typical theories of a special source are— 
(a) Feine’s (pp. 13-33): his source, Jewish Christian in character (c. A.D. 
67), emanates from the church of Jerusalem, and contains the narratives of 


152° (birth-stories), 3°88 (genealogy), 4/#® (rejection at Nazareth), 51} 
1-10, 1-17, 85-80 911-8. Q51-86 γρ 988-42. 7310-17, 81-88 y4l-6 7.,11-19 701-10. 39:44. 2 τι, 


2214.33. 81-34. 85-38, 39-46. 47-53, 54-62, 63-71 ΟΣ 241-8, (ὁ) Similarly, both G. H. 
‘Miiller and B. Weiss find a third large source behind Luke’s gospel; the 
formér’s S, like the latter’s L, bégins with the birth-stories (1-2) and concludes 
with the passion, death, and resurrection. B. Weiss’ reconstruction (printed) 
in Greek in his Quellen der Synopt. Uberlieferung, pp. 97 f.) is as follows :— 
L=1-2 gilt 2.88. 416-90 ς1.11. 88, 80, 39 G18. 15-16. 20-98. 46-49 71-220. 36-50 8) 4 


* So recently A. Meyer (Die Au/erstehung Christi, 1905, pp- 34, 341). 
y y 8 5» ΡΡ' 34» 34 


LUKE 277 


943: 45. 81-86. 1-62 70]. 329-42. 127-28. 87-54 121% 98-88. 49-88 71.21.17 741-88 1 91-8, 11-83 
14-15. 19-81 8-19 9-14, 81-84. 48b f. 1-28. 87-44, 47-48 20-26. 84-38 12-19, 20-28. 
16 17 18 19 20 21 


84-38 291-6. 14-28. 81-84. 89. 2319449. In this case, as in that of the cognate 
3-24 gn 


analyses, Luke must have assigned high importance to his source, for which 
he repeatedly leaves even Mark. But the precision with which L is picked 
out, and materials assigned to it or to Q, carries very little conviction. ‘They 
see not clearliest who see all things clear.’ The linguistic and inward criteria 
for determining what belongs specially to L are too subjective in the large 
majority of cases. A similar criticism applies as forcibly to (c) J. Weiss’ analysis 
of the gospel into three sources: Q, M (Mark), and S (Luke’s special source). 

Q 419 16(). 17 41:18 

M 34 19-20 ) 210-22 4151 81-44 1-20). Bf. () 

S 15-38 56 10-18 18 215 23-28 4158. 1-11 


620-28 27f. wife 18-35 g°7-60 
M Se 12-88 (641-19 84-9 
Re 674-26 7. 11-17 36-50 Q1-3 g°!-56 61-62 


107 13-16 21-24. 25f. (ἡ 1123 9. 165f. 19f. 2vt. 


116-18) 21 () 
17-20 231. 881. y 71-2 δι8 14 27-28 


-- 
ο͵ 
r 


I 1 39f. 121:12 (2) 22-31 33-34 37f. 421. 61-53 
1138 


Ἢ 
8 
8 
= 


1218-21 82 35-36 41 47-50 Sty etl 


-_ 

Ww 
Ὁ 
[3 

᾿ 
[ΣΙ 
- 
8 
r 
= 
& 


141. 158 6-27-85 1537 


i 817. 11:0 12-14 24-25 28-33 τς: 8. 161-12 


I 618 16-11 I Fp 28 26-27 31 3851. I 814 
1618 (2) 1815-43 


1614-15 19-31 iy 25 28-30 32 181-18 Tou 


ΤΟΣ 47-48 201-47 2 11-4 (ἢ). Sf. 25. 221-18 
19/4 42] 881. 2 1291. (ἢ 37-38 22)4t. 
2 271-23 ® 


2289-71 231-5 10 13:26 85:8 86:8 «4. 41-19 
2223.) 2359 112 2131] 84:86 88-8 2418-68 


NZO ὠξ NEO NEO NEO NEO ὦ 


(ὦ Wright, recognising more truly the composite and heterogeneous 
character of Luke’s Sondergut, assigns it to (a) a Pauline collection of parables, 
etc. (cp. his Syzofpszs, pp. 241 f.), (4) anonymous fragments, and (c) a private 
source, including 15-25? 323-28 416f 7f The travel-section (9°) he regards 
as an editorial collection of undated material, partly derived from Q and partly 
from (a). This answers better to the facts of the case than with Burton to 
deny any use of Q or the Matthzean logia, finding the Lucan sources in (a) 
15252, (5) a so-called Perean* document (9%—184 101-38), (c) a Galilean 


* Briggs (New Light on Gospels, 64f.) bases a Perean ministry of Jesus on 
reliable oral sources possessed by Luke. 


278 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


document (37-15 1% 18 42-18. (14-16). 16:80 51-11 620-49 γ]. 38) (¢) Mark, and (6) 
some minor sources or traditions. There are several places in Luke which 
resemble a passage like Herod. v. 1-27, where two or three various traditions 
are blended into one narrative, which have come to the writer, ‘* perhaps at dif- 
ferent times, and from different sources, and he has combined them, as usual, 
with such skill as almost to defy detection” (R. W. Macan, /Yerodotus, ii. 57 f.). 


§ 4. Sty/e.—Special literature: Krenkel (Josephus und Lukas, 
pp. 44 ἢ)» W. H. Simcox (Writers of NT, 1890, 16-24), 
Norden (Antike Kunstprosa, il. 485-492),* Vogel (Zur Charak- 
teristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil*, 1899), J. H. Ropes 
(Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 1901, xii. 299 f.), 
Jacquier ΜΖ. ii. 450 f.). 

The literary finish of the third gospel is evident at the outset 
in the careful rhythm of the prologue— 

ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν 
περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, 
καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ 
λόγου, 
ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς 
καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κρατιστε Θεόφιλε, 
ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. 


The succeeding words, ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ηρῴδου κτλ., show, ἢ 
like the passage which they introduce, the writer’s versatility, 
whether he is composing in archaic semi-Biblical style or leav- 
ing the rough translation of an Aramaic source practically un- 
changed for the sake of effect. Luke’s Hellenistic style and 
the popular Hebraistic paraseology which characterises many 
dialogues of the gospel resemble Arrian’s preservation of the 
colloquialisms in the sayings of Epictetus side by side with his 
own more polished style (cp. Heinrici, Litterarische Charakter 
d. neutest. Schriften, 46 [.).} 

Luke, true to the Atticist-tradition, prefers ἀπὸ τοῦ viv (2218 59) to ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι 
(Mt 26% 64) and βελόνη (18%) to pals (Mk 10%, Mt 19%), avoids verbs 
like ἐκέρδησα (1915: 18 cp. Mt 25% 3), dyyap-vew (23° cp. Mt 27%), and 


*The differences of treatment in Luke’s two volumes, and the greater 
freedom used in the first as compared with the less uniform handling of the 
sources in the second, do not justify Norden’s (p. 482) plea for confining a 
survey of Luke’s style to the third gospel. 

+On the Lucan uses of ἐγένετο, cp. J. H. Moulton, Grammar of N/ 
Greek, i. 16 f. 

+ Four senarii are noted in the gospel, 5% (rls ἐστιν οὗτος ὃς λαλεῖ 
βλασφημίας), 5%! (ἀλλ᾽. .. ἐλήλυθα), 583 (καλέσαι... ἁμαρτωλούς), 5 
(οὐδεὶς πίων παλαιὸν εὐθέως θέλει νέον). 


LUKE 279 


διεσκόρπισας (1075: ™ cp. Mt 2525 %), phrases like ὀψία used substantively 
(e.g. 912=Mk 6%, Mt 14%, 23°=Mk 1542, Mt 2757), μύλος ὄνικος (172 cp. 
Mk 9%, Mt 188) and κοράσιον (851: δέ cp. Mk 54-42, Mt 9*4-%5), and adopts 
phrases like the distributive dvd (94 cp. Mk 939) and the alliterative * λιμοὶ 
καὶ λοιμοὶ (21). As Jerome pointed out to Damasus (ef. 19), he omitted 
(19%) the ὡσαννά of Mk 11°, Mt 217, and Jn 1274, owing to his Greek sense 
of style (z#zter omnes euangelistas grect sermonts eruditissimus), the term 
being one of the foreign phrases (βάρβαρος γλῶσσα) which it behoved a good 
writer to omit (cp. Norden, i. 60-61, ii. 482). There is real significance in 
the omission of terms like κοδράντης (125 cp. Mt 556, 212 cp. Mk 12%), 
woavvd (see above), ῥαββεί (22 cp. Mk 14%, Mt 26%), Γολγοθᾶ (233 cp. 
Mk 15”, Mt 27%), tand σύνδουλος (12 cp. Mt 24%), the substitution ¢ of φόρος 
(207*) for κῆνσος (Mk 1215, Mt 2217), of θεραπεία (124?) for olkerela (Mt 24%), 
of εὖγε (19!) for εὖ (Mt 25%), and of ἐπιβαλεῖν τὰς χεῖρας (20! 2258) for 
κρατεῖν, the insertion of good stylistic phrases like ὑπάρχων (23” cp. 
Mk 15%), καθήμενοι (10! cp. Mt 1174), and participial clauses in general (e.g. 
19% with Mk 117, 2213 nd 58 with Mk 141%, Mt 26°°). On the other hand, 
the Hellenistic features are not always in due proportion. ‘* He sometimes 
gets out of his depth when the effort is long continued, and in trying to be 
elegant ceases to be correct” (Simcox, p. 22).§ 


The unity of style is varied, however, by a characteristic 
freedom of expression and range of vocabulary which prevents 
any stereotyped uniformity. Luke does not hesitate to vary his 
language in describing the same incident twice (cp. eg. the two 
accounts in ro and 11), and he shows sound literary feeling in 
variations like ἐπὶ πρόσωπον πάσης τῆς γῆς (Lk 2135) and ἐπὶ 
παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς '(Δς 1730), τοῦ ἐπικαλ. Μάρκου (Ac 123), 
τὸν ἐπικληθέντα M. (12%), and τὸν καλ. M. (1537). It is obvious 
that in the analysis of the text into source and editorial revision, 
due weight must be allowed to this element of freedom in Luke’s 
method of composition, to “his fondness for repetition, and his 
tendency to vary even facts of some importance when rehearsing 
a story for the second time” (Ropes, of. cit. 304). But this con- 
sideration only serves as a caution against the abuse, not as a veto 
against the exercise, of source-criticism in the gospel or in Acts.|| 

§ 5. Characteristics. —(Bruce, Kingdom of God, pp. 1-37; 

* For the good Greek of this alliteration, see Lobeck’s Paraltp, gramm. 
grec. i. 53 f. 

+ Cp. the omission of ἐλωΐ ἐλωΐ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί in 23, and of the double 
negative (19°) in Mk 112, 

+ So ἐπὶ with dative (215 cp. Mk 137, Mt 242), and τις (9 10% etc.) for els. 

§ e.g. in Ac 17? 237°*4 and 24”. 

1 It isan open question, ¢.g., how far the two forms (Ἱερουσαλήμ, and ᾽Ἴερο: 
σόλυμα represent a difference of sources or literary tact upon Luke’s part (cp, 
¥. Bartlet in 44 7. xiii. 157-158), and how far Luke used them indifferently. 


28 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


Plumer, pp. xli f.; Abbott, £2. 1789 f.; Nicolardot, Les 
Procédés de Rédaction des trois premiers Evangélistes, pp. 123 f.). 

Luke belongs to the class of historians who are “drawn 
towards the dramatic and personal elements in history, primarily 
as they appear in the lives of famous individual men.”* The 
biographical note, so prominent in Acts, is more marked in his 
gospel than in any of the others; he dramatises situations, 
likes to put a soliloquy into a parable, throws a number of the 
logia into table-talk, and tries often to create a suitable mise en 
scéne in public for others (e.g. 151).{ He is fond of using 
questions in order to provide good connections or to vivify the 
situation (¢.g. 31915 639 2248 49. 61) and this feature emerges in the 
more historical sections as well as in the graceful stories which 
come from his own pen. This literary device is accompanied 
by a considerable amount of idealisation,{ due to the author’s 
religious prepossessions. The omissions, insertions, and altera- 
tions in the gospel are sufficiently well marked to bring out 
several of his predilections, e.g. his sense that Gentile readers 
would not be specially interested in the criticism of the Jewish law, 
his irenic tendency (as in Ac 15, etc.) to ‘spare the twelve,’ his 
emphasis on the Gentile mission as essentially part of the gospel, 
his heightening of the authority and also of the tenderness of 
Jesus, the place he assigns to women (cp. Harnack, BIT. i. 
153 f.), his love of antitheses between different types of char- 
acter, the prominence given to prayer, to the holy Spirit,§ and 
to thanksgiving.|| 


* Bryce, Studies in Contemporary Biography (1903), p. 149. 

t Instances are cited by Nicolardot, of. c#t. pp. 130 f. (‘ Luc donne, aux 
introductions qui lui sont propres, un réalisme précis, mais factice, qui sym- 
bolise dans un cadre pseudo-historique la verité plus large d’une situation ou 
d’un état de choses postérieurs’), The tendency is carried on in the Fourth 
gospel, where the circumstantial details are generally a proof of tradition in 
its later stages rather than of any eye-witness’s testimony. 

1 Cp. Bruce, With Open Face (1896), pp. 52f., ‘The Idealised Picture of 
Luke.’ 

§ On the case for ἐλθέτω τὸ πνεῦμα σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς as the original reading 
in 117, see Resch, 7U. v. 4. 398 f., x. 2. 228 f.; Blass, Hv. sec. Lucam, pp. 
xlii f., and Harnack, SBBA., 1904, 195 f. 

Η He might have taken as the motto for his gospel, says Nicolardot 
(p. 123), the phrase, ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμα pov ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μον 
(cp. Harnack, BN7. i. 63 f.). But Paul’s words, πάντοτε χαίρετε, ἀδ α- 
λείπτως προσεύχεσθε, ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε, are an even better summary of 
Luke’s message for his age. 


LUKE 281 


Tt ts a literary rather than a religious characteristic which emerges in what 
has been termed Luke’s “law of parsimony” (Storr, Uber den Zweck der 
evang. Geschichte und der Briefe Johannts, 1786, pp. 274 f.) z.e., his method 
of abbreviating, as far as possible, material which already lay before him in 
another form, or of omitting what had been narrated by earlier writers, when 
such omissions did not seriously interfere with his own plan. This tendency 
summa uestigia sequiis more marked in the gospel than in Acts, however. 
A conspicuous instance is the shortening of the Gethsemane-scene by the 
omission of Mk 14%, even although this abbreviation lessens (cp. 42) his 
favourite emphasis on prayer ; but an examination of his comparative avoid- 
ance of duplicates and his selections from the logia (cp. Resch’s Paulinitsmus, 
575 f., and Ausserkan. Paralleltexte, iii. 838 f.), affords full proof of the law.* 


According to Hilgenfeld (ZW7., 1901, 1-11), Theophilus 
needed to be confirmed in the basis of the Pauline gospel, and 
the author of the third gospel wrote with that aim in view. 
This motive cannot be attributed to Luke. One of the most 
assured results of recent research ¢ is that he was not a Paulinist 
masquerading as a historian. He substitutes χάρις, 6. σ., in 6°? 
(cp. Mt 546), but neither here nor elsewhere in the Pauline 
sense of the term. There are numerous echoes of Pauline 
phraseology like 482=1 Co 24, 6%=2 Co 13, 813-- 1 Co 17], 88= 
iene sito" = (Ὁ Το», ΤΟΙ = 1 Th. 45 11"— Gal 6, 1244— 
1 Co 43, 20°=Ro 148, and 21%=Ro 11%; but in some of 
these and other cases Paul has genuine logia in mind, and there 
is no distinct ‘ Paulinism’ audible in the gospel any more than 
in its sequel. ‘Luke made no attempt to introduce a propa- 
ganda of Paulinism into the sacred history’ (Jiilicher). The 
graciousness and universalism of the gospel are due to Jesus 
ultimately, not to the apostle. Luke reflects, partly through his 
sources, several tendencies of the apostolic age, but these do 
not include Paulinism in the technical sense of the term. 

8 6. Jn Tradition.—The patristic tradition that Marcion 
abbreviated and altered our canonical third gospel, may be ac- 
cepted as correct. A critical investigation of the data shows that 
Luke’s gospel, as we have it, must have represented substantially 

* Ruegg (SX., 1896, 94-101, ‘Die Lukasschriften und der Raumzwang 
des antiken Buchwesens’) uses the restricted size of papyrus-rolls to account 
for Luke’s narrative, ¢.g., in 24. 

+ ‘‘L’auteur . . . ne s’intéresse pas ἃ la théologie particuliére de saint 
Paul, et l’on disait presque qu'il ignore . . . encertain passages trés caractér- 
istiques, il néglige les additions pauliniennes de Marc pour s’en tenir aux 
données primitives ” (Loisy, i. p. 173); so Wellhausen (on 7°), Schmiedel 
(Ε Δὲ. 1840-1841), and B. Weiss (Quellen d. synopt, Ueberlicferung, 251). 


282 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


the document which was in his hands (cp. Sanday, Gosfels ia 
Second Century, 204f., 362f.; Zahn, GX. i. 585f., 11. 409 f.).* 
Within less or little more than half a century after the book 
was written, it was used by Marcion not only as Lucan, but as 
a collection of evangelic materials which could be re-shaped for 
his own purposes. The references in Justin Martyr probably 
imply not only the existence of Matthew and Luke, but of some 
fusion of them in a gospel harmony upon which, rather than 
upon these gospels directly, Justin seems to have drawn. The 
third chief witness to the existence and estimate of the third 
gospel in the second century is the Muratorian Canon, whose 
text, though corrupt to the verge of obscurity, echoes the 
tradition of the Lucan authorship. 


Tertium euangelit librum secundum Lucam Lucas iste medicus, post 
ascensum Christi cum eum Paulus quast ttinerts (suz) socéum secum adsump- 
sisset, nomine suo ex opintone (sc. Pauli) conscripsit. The text is badly 
preserved. U¢ zurcs must be emended either as above (so, e.g., Bunsen, Hort, 
Schwartz) f or into /7¢terzs (Buecheler, Lietazmann). The following words 
studtosum secundum are probably a corruption of the original (szz) sociwm 
secum (so, ¢.g., Bunsen, Hort) ; secundum, at any rate, unless it be due to 
dittography, was originally secum (Routh, Schmid, Westcott, Lietzmann, 
etc.). The difficult words ex ofintone represent not ἐξ ἀκοῆς (Ronsch, 
Westcott, Lietzmann, etc.), but either ex ordiie (Routh, Leipoldt, etc.) or as 
above (so, Schwartz = Παύλου γνώμῃ, a counterpart to omzne suo, just as 
recognoscentibus cunctis lower down is to Johannes suo nomine) rather than 
ex (omnium) opintone (Corssen). 


ACTS, 


LITERATURE.—(a) editions (modern) $—S. J. Lorinus (1605); Gaspard 
Sanchez (1616); Grotius (1644); L. Fromond (Louvain, 1654); G. Benson 
(1756); Pearce (London, 1777); J. M. Lobstein (unfinished, Strassburg, 
1792); S. F. N. Morus (Versto et explicatio A. A., ed. G. J. Dindorf, 
1794); Thiess, Lukas’ Apgeschichte meue tibersetzt mit Anmerkungen 
(1800); Kistenmaker (Gesch. d. Ap. mit Anmerkungen, 1822); Kuinoel 
(Commentarius in libros NT héstoricos, iv.2, 1827) ; Biscoe (Oxford, 1829) ; 
Hastings Robinson (London, 1830); Olshausen (1832); Meyer (1835); 
W. Trollope (Cambridge, 1847); ΝΥ. G. Humphrey (1847); de Wette! 
(1848); Bornemann (1848); Beelen (1851, second ed. 1869); C. M. Du 
Veil (ed. F. A. Cox, London, 1851); H. B. Hackett? (1858); Ebrard 


*On the Lucan version and Marcion’s account of 4'*™, cp. Hilgenfeld 
(ZWT., 1902, 127-144). 

+ Cp. Ac 9? 19° 24”. 

1 The main sixtecnth-century contrilutions were made by Calvin 
Erasmus (1516, Basle), Vatable (Paris, 1545), and Gagnzeus (Scho/ia, Paris 


1552). 


ACTS 283 


(1862); J. A. Alexander® (1867); F. X. Patrizi (1867); Alford ® (1868); 
Meyer 4 (1870, Eng. tr. 1883); P. J. Gloag (1870) ; Overbeck (—de Wette 4, 
1870); Beelen (1870); Bisping? (1871); Ewald (1871); Abbé Crampon 
(Paris, 1872); W. Denton (1874); Reuss (1876); Cook (1880); H. Conrad 
(Potsdam, 1882); Nosgen (Leipzig, 1882); Crelier (Paris, 1883); T. E. 
Page (London, 1886); Wordsworth* (1887); Felten (Freiburg, 1892) ; 
G. T. Stokes (Exposztor’s Bible, 1893); Zockler? (1894); Lumby (CG7%. 
1894); Blass, Acta Apost. sive Luce ad Theophilum liber alter (editio 
philologica, 1895); F. Rendall (1897) ; Couard (1897); A. Wright (London, 
1897); Barde (1898); Wendt (— Meyer 8, 1899) * ; Schroeder? (Lausanne, 
1899) ; Hilgenfeld (Berlin, 1899) * ; Knabenbauer (Paris, 1899); Knowling 
(2G 7 1901) 5, TH. J. ΕΟ ἐστε δι (@C. 1901)*; J. Ἐ. Hiickesheim 
(Paderborn, 1902); Schlatter (1902); F. C. Ceulemans (Commentarius, 
1903); J. M. S. Baljon (1903); V. Bartlet (CB. n. d.); V. Rose (Paris, 
1905); J. E. Belser (1905) ; B. Weiss? (1907); H. P. Forbes (New York, 
1907); R. Knopf (SV7?, 1907); H. T. Andrews (Westminster NT, 1908) ; 
G. H. Gilbert (New York, 1908); R. B. Rackham? (WC. 1909) *. 

(4) Studies—(i.) general :—J. Lightfoot’s Hebrew and Talnudical Exercita- 
tions on the Acts of the Apostles (1678) ; Griesbach, De Concilio quo scriptor 
tn Actis concinnandts ductus fuertt (Jena, 1798); 11. Robinson, Acta Apost. 
Variorum Notis (Cambridge, 1824); Gfrorer, Dée hetlige ΣΡ ΠΒ,ΒΣ i. 383 Ὁ 
ii. 244 f. ; Schneckenburger, Uber den Zweck d. ΑΞ B. Bauer, 
die Apgeschichte (1850); Pearson, Lectures on Acts (1851); M. Baumgarten, 
die Apgeschichte, oder d. Entwickelungsgang der Kirche von Jerus. bis Rom? 
(1859, Eng. tr. 1854 of first ed.); Zeller,! die Apgeschichte nach threm 
Inhalt τι. Ursprung kritisch untersucht (1854)*; Trip, Paulus nach a. 
Apgeschichte (1866); Oertel, Paulus in d. Apgeschichte (Halle, 1868; 
Paley’s Hore Pauline (ed. Birks, 1870); Zimmer, Galaterbrief u. die 
Apgeschichte (1882); H. J. Holtzmann (Schenkel’s &Z. i. 208f.); Jager’s 
Gedanken u. Bemerkungen (1891 f.); J. B. Lightfoot (Smith’s DA. i. 25 f.); 
Reuss, W774, ii. 296-310; Cone, The Gospel and its Earliest Interpreta- 
tions (1893), pp. 138-150; Pfleiderer, ἐ γε. i. 469. (Eng. tr. ii. τοι f.); 
McGiffert (AA. 345f., 433f.)*; Belser’s Bettrage zur Erklirung d. 
Apgeschichte (1897); A. C. Headlam (DZ. i. 25-35); J. Weiss, Uber die 
Absicht und den litter. Charakter d. Apgeschichte (1897); V. Bartlet (Bzd/i- 
cal World, xix. pp. 260f.); P. ΝΥ. Schmiedel (247. 37-57) *; G. Semeria, 
Venticingue anni di storia del Cristian?smo nascente (Rome, 1900); Bum- 
stead (Azb/ical World, 1901, 355f.); Moffatt (HN7. 412 f., 655f.); Ε΄ H. 
Chase (Zhe Credibility of Acts, 1902); Cassel, SR. 565-752; Corluy 
(Vigoroux’ D&, i. 151-159); R. J. Knowling, Zestémony of St. Paul to 
Christ (1905), 148f., 431f.; C. Clemen, ave Apgeschichte im Lichte der 
neueren textquellen und histor.-krit. Forschungen (1905); W. Hadorn, daze 
Apgeschichte und thr geschichtl. Wert (1906); A. {{Π: 3 ΡΒ. (ZWT., 1906, 
461-483, 1907, 176-215), and J. I. Belser, de Apgeschichte (1908). (ii.) On 
special points :—Burton, Chron. igs and S. Paul’s Epp. ΠΣΕΣΝΣ 1830); 


? Overbeck’s inereduction to Acts and this essay of Zeller occupy pp. 
1-84 and pp. 85 f. of the Eng. tr. (London, 1875), entitled, Contents and 
Origin of the Acts of the Apostles (cited as Zeller-Overbeck). 


284 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


R. Anger, de temporum in Actis Ap. ratione (1833); Klostermann’s 
Probleme im Aposteltexte (1883); M. W. Jacobus, A Problem in Criticism 
(1900), 105f. ; W. Soltau, ‘ Inwieweit kann d. Apgeschichte als historische 
Quelle gelten’ (Bettrage 2. alien Geschichte, v. 117-123); 5. Grandjean, 
‘étude sur la valeur historique du Livre des Actes’ (Liberté Chrétienne, 1906, 
247-260). (iii.) On religious 1deas:—J. Weiss, DCG. i. 25-28; Shailer 
Mathews, J/esstanic Hope in NT (1906), 137 f. ; Mangenot, ‘ Jésus, Messie et 
Fils de Dieu, d’aprés les Actes des Apdétres’ (Revue de [Institut catholique 
de Paris, 1907, 385-423), and V. Ermoni, ‘La Cristologia degli Atti degli 
Apostoli’ (Rzvista delle Scienze teolog., 1908, 369-383). (iv.) On the 
sources :—Konigsmann, Prolusio de fontibus commentariorum sacrorum gut 
Luce nomen preferunt, deque eorum consilio et atate (1798); J. K. Riehm, 
dissertatio critico-theologica de fontibus Act. Ap. (1821); Schwanbeck, Ueder 
die Quellen d. Apgeschichte (1847); Horst, Zssat sur les sources de la 
deuxiéme partie des Actes des apitres (1849); Lekebusch, ae Composition u. 
Entstehung der Apgeschichte von neuem untersucht (1854); Jacobsen, de 
Quellen d. Apgeschichte (Berlin, 1885); van Manen, Paulus 1=de 
handelingen der Apostelen (Leiden, 1890); Sorof, aze LEntstehung d. 
Apgeschichte (1890) ; Feine, Eine vorkanonische Ueberlieferung des Lukas im 
Evglm und Apgeschichte (1891)* ; Spitta, dée Apgéschichte, thre Quellen und 
deren Geschichtlicher Wert (1891)*; J. Weiss (SH., 1893, 480-540) ; 
Jiingst, die Quellen der Apgeschichte (1895); Zimmermann (.SA., 1901, 
438f.) ; Mallinckrodt, ‘ Het wij-bericht in de Handelingen, in verband met 
die Handelingen, en het evangelie van Lucas beschouwd’ (Ge/oof en Vrijhezd, 
xxxv. 5); Soltau (PAZ, 1903, 265 f., 296f.); Harnack (BN7, iii. 162 f.)* ; 
J. Wellhausen’s Voten zur Apgeschichte (in ‘ Nachrichten von der koniglichen 
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Philologisch - Historische 
Klasse, 1907, Heft i. pp. 1-21), and E. Schwartz, Zur Chronologie des 
Paulus (ibid. pp. 263-299); B. W. Bacon (4/7. xiii. 59-76, review of 
Harnack, etc.), Ρ. W. Schmidt (Dze Apgeschichte bet de Wette-Overbeck und 
bet Adolf Harnack, 1910). (v.) the speeches :—Kahler (Petrine Speeches, 
SK., 1873, 492f.); Bethge (Die Paulinische Reden der Apgeschichte, 1887) ; 
Cassel (SR. 618-637); E. Curtius, ‘ Paulus in Athen’ (SBBA., 1893, 925f., 
cp. Exp.” iv. 436-455) *; Schulze (SX., 1900, 119-124 on 20'S!) ; Baljon 
( Theol. Studién, 1900, 179 f.); W. Soltau, ‘Die Herkunft der Reden in der 
Apgeschichte’ (ZVW., 1903, 128-154); P. Gardner (Cambridge Biblical 
Essays, 1909, 378-419) * ; M. Jones (St. Paul the Orator, 1910). 

§ 1. Outline and contents.—This sequel to the third gospel is 
an account of some deeds of she holy Spirit (1% δ. 8) of Jesus 
Christ, performed through some of the apostles, notably Peter 
and Paul. The scope and aim of the book is the triumphant 
extension of the Christian faith from Jerusalem to Rome, 
through Judea and Samaria (18). The first part (116°) 
describes the origin of the church at Jerusalem, the second 
(689%) its diffusion throughout Palestine, including Samaria, 
the third (932-127) its expansion from Judzea to Antioch, the 
fourth its spread throughout Asia Minor (12%—164), the fifth its 


ACTS 285 


extension to Europe or Macedonia and Achaia (16°%-19!%), 
culminating in the arrival of Paul as the representative of the 
Gentile Christian gospel at Rome (=/¢he uttermost parts of the 
earth, 18, cp. Ps. Sol 81%). Each section is summarised (67 9%! 
12% 165 1929 and 28%!) by a rubric of progress. 

The increased prominence of the S; irit in the third gospel is 
evident in the δεύτερος λόγος, where the holy Spirit is treated 
as the inspiring force of the early church’s energies (cp. especi- 
ally characteristic passages like 24% 59-82 755 815. 39 7147. 1 12. 28 
132 1528 1667 19% 2038 2111), This serves to explain how Luke 
could follow up a gospel, narrating the sayings and doings of 
Jesus, with an account of apostolic activity in the early church, 
whether the preface of Luke 1! is meant to cover the sequel or 
not. Neither Acts nor the third gospel, at any rate, were written 
for non-Christian readers (as, ¢g., Overbeck, J. Weiss, Nestle, 
Zahn, and von Soden argue). Theophilus was some distinguished 
convert, perhaps a Roman official like Sergius Paulus, who 
needed fuller instruction in the historic basis of the faith (cp. 
DCG. ii. 726-727). Behind him Luke probably saw many like- 
minded inquirers, and he wrote this δεύτερος λόγος in order to 
follow up the impression made by the πρῶτος λόγος. The 
geographical plan adopted in the 1:.tter (Galilee, Samaria, etc., 
Jerusalem) is retained in the former (Jerusalem, Samaria, etc., 
Rome); but more important is the conception that the work of 
the church is a continuation of Christ’s energy. The Lucan 
writings in this, as in several other respects (see below), reflect 
the Christian consciousness of the Fourth gospel, in which the 
utterances and actions of the church are regarded as the direct 
outcome of the living Lord (cp. £x#.° iv. 237 f.). 


Πράξεις (τῶν) ἀποστόλων, though not the author’s title, must have been 
prefixed to the book during the second century. For purposes of convenience it 
is usually quoted by early writers simply as πράξεις (acta, actus). The variant 
πρᾶξις (Nestle, Hzf. 240) is generally no more than a familiar abbreviation 
of the servé~tzo plena, but Hilary of Poitiers seems to have taken it as a 
genuine singular (cp. J. Denk in ZVW., 1906, 92-95). 


It has been thought that Luke wrote, or intended to write, a 
third volume, describing Paul’s release, subsequent travels, and 
death, or the fortunes of Peter and the rest of the apostles. So, 
e.g., Bleek, Spitta, E. Bertrand (sux Pauthenticité des Epitres 
Pastorales, 1858, 50f., who feels that “les Actes se terminent 
avec une brusquerie presque brutale”), Ramsay, Zahn, Balmer, 


2860 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


and Burkitt. The arcuments for this theory, however, are not 
sufficient to bear its weight. (a) Πρότερον would have been, 
strictly speaking, more accurate than πρῶτον in 1}, if Luke had 
meant the first of two volumes; but πρῶτος can quite well denote 
‘one of two,’ and, as Luke never uses πρότερος, the likelihood is 
that πρῶτος is its equivalent here as in 7!% (6) The argument 
from internal evidence, viz., that the contents and climax point 
to Luke’s purpose of carrying forward the lines of Christian 
progress which he had dropped in his second volume, depends 
ona priori theories of the historian’s aim (cp. McGiffert, 4A. 
418 f.). 

§ 2. Source-criticism.—Special literature: in addition to works 
cited above (p. 284), see surveys by B. Weiss (Zynd. § 50), Zeller- 
Overbeck (i. 31 f., ii. 291 f.), Heitmuller (Z7'R., 1899, 47-59, 83- 
95, 127-140), Zockler (Grerfswwalder Studien, 1895, pp. 129 f.), 
Rose (RB. vii. 325-342), Moffatt (HVT. 655 f.), Bludau (BZ, 
1907, 166-189, 258-281), and Clemen (Paxdus, i. pp. 162 f.). 


The presumption that in his δεύτερος λόγος, as in its predecessor (Lk 1), 
Luke employed not only oral traditions but written sources, is borne out by 
an examination of the gaps, discrepancies, roughnesses, and repetitions which 
stud the pages of Acts (cp. the list in Harnack’s BVT. iii. 203 f., and 251. 
39f.). These render it as likely as in the case of John’s apocalypse that the 
earlier sections of the book at least contain strata of different periods and 
aims. The hypothesis of (i.) a single written source is presented in various 
forms. Briggs (Wew Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 135f.) and Blass (Acta 
Apost. iv f., Philology of Gospels, pp. 141 f.), e.g, finds a Jerusalem-source due 
to John Mark,* who wrote in continuation of his gospel (which originally 
ended at 168), a sequel describing (a) the appearances of Jesus after his death, 
and (ὁ) the acts of the local disciples. Luke, who had incorporated Mk. in 
his gospel, is supposed τὸ have made a similar use of this sequel in his second 
volume. Feine prefers to trace his pre-canonical source of the third gospel 
through Ac I-12, 2.6. a Jewish Christian document of considerable historic 


value, written c. A.D. 67, describing the growth of the Jerusalem-church (14* 
8. 9-12. 19-17. 20-86 pl-da, 12-18, 14-42 (43-47) 31-8a. 11-28 4. Th-ld, 18, (21), 22, (28), 24-91. 3B 


86-87 1-11, 12-16, 24-85. 87-42 (8). 9-11. 15 722-28, 85-48, 61-56. 59-60 Qlb-2 4-9. 11-13 (81-43 
τοὐ “21. 390-38, B6-d2e, 44-48 12-17. 19-88 1.21.2. B. Weiss detects editorial addi- 
tions in 12-1. 18-19 248-47 34-5, 8:10. 3.8, δι 7 10-17, 19-20, (25, 27). 81, 84-95 ς (8, 9). 14. 
16-20, (21). 22-24. 88, 86, 42 (111-12, (15) 758-59. 60 910, δ 1087. 40. 711-18. yoI8-22 pole 
%-25 similarly Clemen, abandoning his former very complicated analysis, 
now finds a single source in I-11, with editorial additions. (ii.) The dual- 


* Cp. Weiss, Marcus-Eugim. p. 511. Schirle (dte petrinische Strémung 
in der NT Lit., 1893, pp. 53f., 113f.) is also an exponent of this view. 
Ewald’s theory of a Petrine and a Pauline source overlapping in I-12 is 
restated by Badham (£7. xi. 287 f.). 


ACTS 287 


source hypothesis is represented by Sorof, Spitta, and Jiingst. Van Manen 
and Hilgenfeld combine it with a form of what is ogee (iii.) the 
triple-source theory advocated by Schwanbeck. Harnack (#7. iii. 162 f.) 
simply detects a Jerusalem-Antioch source in 618 111%? oe (based on 
the authority of Silas), which probably, but only probably, was written; also 
a Jerusalem-Cesarean source (or group of traditions) in 3!—5!© 85:10 o§1_y 118 
12!-*8 ; ο᾽ 80 comes from a separate plot of tradition. (B) 2 ite “#2 and (A) 
31-516 are double recensions of the same story which follows up the incidents 
of 1; (A) is mainly derived from men like Philip and Mark, and is much 
superior to the confused and unreliable (B), which ‘‘ combines things that 


(A) (B) 
Lk 2459-53, ascension of Jesus Na 
1-3 
15-17", 20-26", election of | i. 4-14, ascension of Jesus; 18, 19, | 1-11* 
Matthias ᾿ξ death of Judas 
1 (. . . συμπλὴρ.), 4, 12, 13, | ii. 1b-3, 5*-6, g-11 3b 
14-40, Peter’s speec 
41-42, 45-47 i 43 
whole | ΠῚ." 
I, 3-5) 7-33" Iv. 36-37 ν᾿ 
te oad 14 ν. 1-πι28 (Ananias and Sapphira), 
: 15-39" 
1-6 (the Seven), 9-128 (... ] vi. 7-8, 12-15 o* 
γραμμ.) Υ̓ εἶ 
2-51, 57, 588 (. . - €AcOof.), | vil. Ι, 55, 56, 58>-60 
Stephen’s speech and death Si 
χα", 2. viii. 18 (. . . αὐτοῦ), 3, 5-40% (Philip- 
section) 
ix. 1-3*, 6-31, conversion of Paul; | 1", 18* 
32-43 (Peter) 
{ . X. I-35, 44-48 
19-21, church of Antioch ; 27-30” | xi. 1 18: ὩΣ ΞΟ 23” 
25 xii, 1- 4, death of James, ete. 
1-5, 13*-41, Paul’s speech; 43, | Aili. 6-12, 42, 44*-49, 52 a* 
5c, 51 Ζ 
1-2, “eb: 7*, 21-26, 28 xiv. 3, 8-20 
35-41 | xv. Us 38) the Council] 5-12* 
i-19 (22-23*) (35*), 37-40" xvi. we 23*), 24-34 (365) 
t-4 (5°), 10-34 (Berea and | xvii. (s* *), 6 
Athens) Ws 
1-5* (.. Παῦλος), 7-24* (25), | xviil. 
26-28 
18(. . . Ἔφεσον), 8-108(. . . δύο), | xix 1b-7, rob*-20, 24-41 (riot in 
21, 22 Ephesus) 
whole XX. τ᾿ 
1-, 12-14", 1τ5-2ολ (. . . Θεόν), | xxi. TO, 11", 200-26" 
YS bc 
I-29” xxii. 30* 55 
11-35 Xxlll. | στιοὸῦ 
whole | xxiv. 
whole | xxv. 18° 
whole | xxvi. 
whole XXvii, 
1-16, 30-31 xxviii. | 17-23" 


* The redactor’s presence is marked by an asterisk (*), and he is respons- 
ible for the passages omitted in the above list. For the sake of clearness the 
references have been arranged in the order of the chapters, but more than 
once, especially in (B), Spitta transposes whole paragraphs, e.g. 95.351 is trans- 
ferred to a place between 88 and 85, and 15! 1388 occurs between 12” 
and 13°. 


288 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


have no real connection with one snother, omits what is important, and 
is devoid of all sense of historical development” (p. 194). Harnack lays 
great stress, however,—though not <o much as Ramsay (/xf,’ vii. 172f., 
262f., 358f., 450f.),—on the authority or traditions of men like Philip, 
Mnason, etc. Both Harnack and Ramsay thus hark back to a position 
approximating to that of Overbeck who denied any written sources except 
the We-journal. The data cannot, however, be explained apart from some 
source or sources, especially in the opening chapters, although most of the 
hypotheses proposed run to the opposite extreme of over-precision, as the 
following analyses will show. The main constructive feature of Spitta’s 
analysis—and at the same time its weak point—consists in the comparatively 
limited and unimportant function which he assigns to the redactor (see p. 287). 

Spitta’s hypothesis * involves two primary sources. (A), a well-informed 
source which underlies the third gospel also, is probably from the pen of 
Luke, contains the most trustworthy passages of the book, and is superior 
in historical insight to (B). The latter, like (A), contains ‘‘ supernatural” 
elements, but these are drawn from popular traditions, and appear to be 
more highly coloured and less coherent; the stress falls on ‘‘ wonders” 
throughout, whereas in (A) the preaching of the apostles is emphasised. 
Both sources, independent in origin and individually featured, have been 
combined, arranged, and edited by a redactor (R) before the end of the first 
century, though (B) was composed by a Jewish-Christian admirer of Peter 
much earlier—after 70 A.D. 

Jiingst also confines himself, like several of the more sober critics, to a 
bisection of the book. (A), including the we-journal, extends through the 
whole book, the latter part of which has been interpolated by the final editor 
(R), who is not Luke but a companion of Paul, writing in the early part of 
the second century (under Trajan). He has used in the first half of the work 
an Ebionitic source (B) already employed in the gospel of Luke, but here 
rearranged to suit (A). The final redaction is supposed to have taken place 
4.D. 110-125 (cp. 13 191°, which are taken to imply a wide diffusion of 
Christianity). (R) is differentiated chiefly by his style and his conception of 
Paul’s work and teaching, (B) is anti-Jewish, and (A) possibly Lucan. Upon 
the other hand, Hilgenfeld finds three sources used by the final editor (R) : 
like van Manen, he assigns the chief importance to (()Ξε πράξεις Παύλου, an 
account of Paul’s work and person by Luke, to which the final redactor, a 
Pauline unionist, subordinated his other source (B)=mpdtes τῶν ἑπτά, and 
especially (A)=(Jewish Christian) πράξεις Πέτρου, adding passages of his 
own: 

(A) = 18-5 93 121-23 [R mainly in 1116 gid Gb @ @ 4120, 310, 3δυ 3. 

4 12a, 27-28, 880-85 514-16. 86] 

(B)=6-8%. 

(ΟΞ {17:5 


* Partially modified by J. Weiss (SX., 1893, p. 480f.; Die Absicht. 
especially p. 38f.), who finds only (B) in chs. 1-5, only (A) in the second 
half of the book, and in the middle chapters a blending of material from 
(A) and (B). Cp. the notices by von Soden (7'ZZ., 1892, 639 f.) and Wrede 
(GGA, 1895, p. 497 f.), of Spitta’s volume. 


289 


ge-L1 


ge-qoe 
19) 
-Ez ‘oz-0gor 


ἐι-εὶ 
ξε-ρορι 
¥E-glz “5--οαξ 


6e—1z ‘eE1-S [1.6] OF “91 -Ὅαξ: 
-1ζ- 
[2 
τ (sadessed 


9010 Suowe) 1 1% ‘op 


ACTS 


81 ‘Zr ‘91 “,581 ‘v1-2 ‘9-9 ‘E-1 


et foglt ‘S1—1 
[121 191}8 : gh-vh ‘SE-1] 
€v—c£] gz—gz ‘goz-L1 ‘S1-9 
gOoh—9z 
Sbe-6r ‘Er-11 ‘pe6-S ‘E ‘ze ‘er 
wQS—1S ‘EF-SE ‘Qz-ze 
Sx ‘11 “ “αὐ ‘9-1 


(τῶν aes “wee-re 67:21 ὉΓΡῚ “wars 
18 ὍΣ cp-aty ver ‘oh Ὃς 18 Ἴ ΤΣ 
WHIT BL ὍΤΙΣ ας 116 "8 "5:1 
96-022 το οι: 59Ρ1594) ‘seyounys 
aunssjeg 243 Jo yuswidojaaap 
oy} jo eAlelievu uelsiyy 
*ysimo( SurAyipea ue ‘A3101103s1q 
39 quiod ut (Vy) 03 z0112;ur (4) 


*tsoNOf 


“OM I9TIO 9Π] ΟἹ LOLI} 
urse (Vy) ur syivd 22142 sty jo 
IsIy 911 spavZe1 pur ‘(1949"sS 

] -ZI9AA 9.1) γι ‘EL OW 07 SNOIA 
«οι [iounod 961 59100 yscun{ 
1€ ὋΣ ..1-ἰ 

γγ-ἐξ ‘oz-1 

zt-6 ‘S-1 

gz ‘(bz-1) 

ἐε-εε ‘61-11 γιατὶ 

€ “ἐξ-ατ 

δέ-ττιξ 'κοι-ς ‘ygh-1 

OF ‘GE «ἐξ -ἐξ ‘goz—,01-1 

oB& “LE ‘of ‘zt ‘1b ‘zz αθι-πορὶ 
Ze ‘IZ *gOI-g ‘qel 
«8ξ ‘elt ‘9% *hz-ze 
“ζ8 'οἱδ ‘q61-qgr ‘11 ‘g “ὦ ‘qS-t 
FE ἔνθ᾽ ‘eQI-g Ὃ-ἰ 
οὐ-2Ὲ ‘SE ‘efz—L ‘eg wf ‘I 


τ)-οἱ [SE-zE ‘gof “2)-- 
ge ‘qlz-qiz ‘2 ‘9 ‘,2 ‘1 
1S ‘oS ‘Ev “88 
"€E-0F ‘ge ‘glz-gz ‘Ez-fx ‘, 9-1 


“ 


4:32} 
[5:1 191} 
‘of-ygz—Lz] gz ‘Sz ‘Ex—61 


qok ‘Sz-qre ‘S-1 


. oqt 
09-95 ‘oS-¥y ‘hE-6z ‘1z-1 
VtI-9z1 ‘o1-6 


(‘ee τε Ὃς “w-2t 
“QIGRE PID Ὑ 9% ταῦ “06 “BE ἽΤΑΨΙ 
“SUIT “*8-9 -vg-1E SLy-OF OS) "BID 68-98 
"ESBS ἜΠΖΙ PS GPL “FEL ὝΦΙ 8:9 8 BE 
Sepisog) ᾿82-ἰῷ (2) ‘1z-£1 (9) 
(St) z1-1 (v) : sjied 2014) ul (Ὁ) 
201nOs lew 511 jo sisAjeuy 


*AIXX 
ἍΠΧΧ 
“XX 
ἫΝ 
“MX 


ΙΧ 


ὑπιλχ 


τντιϑ es Ὁ ze ον εν 59Ρ1596 


.91-ἰ1 1£-g91 us 

Φουα a 
l q ΓΙ “ 
« Lt} 

ae a“ 

ajo ἐξ 

οε 6z-12 ‘61-1 se 

Ge ‘yoz—1 οὐ-οὐ ‘bz-qoz “ 

gi-¥ gt—-Zi ‘€-1 Us 

OZ-11 ‘eI 1v-1z ‘OI-q! Se 


ξε-- (99 SoLav 


ge—te ‘61 .41-5 °° ¢ mew ὍΧΟ) OL ‘b-1 


*ITAX “91-αΡ Ῥέπηρι ‘nvI-1 WS 
*1Ax «81-οἱ ‘S-r 6¢-qgt “OI-y 2joqma 
Ὁ 1¥-SE “(zz “ww? "2 Ὃ 
“ax ere ‘gi-L ano 4da0xa) €t-61 ‘o-1| ysox |£1-€] 9-8 
“AIX SetI-g ‘E gI-qit τ ‘ec ‘x CS 
Ἵπχ ἐξ-γε ‘of-Le eS-ge ‘Ef “εξ ‘ge—z ajoqa 
“x os ‘c-1 ξε-Ἔ Se Gz 
7 gr é1-1 οἵ-δε οἕ-ός 
x ajoqm 
τι 1f-1 | £¢-zé of-1 
“INIA ® ‘€ ‘oq ‘et | oF-S © ("9 °s Ὑκ 3d99x9) gt ε 
ΠΝ QBS Ὁ og “Ὃς ‘ngS—1 6S-z 
+A ΓΌΝΟΣ S1-L 
" » S| ἢ S| ὦ 
Ἐπ TSE S| CLES | 29 sees? ope 5-11 09 B EF.| 3 
BElSSe 5, 3@ | uontppy ur ‘surureyu0o 5 Β' [3.5 5] 3 
Le Tall γε Rs 3. —juaurmoad [neg ΕΞ aoa FERS ge 
on cS) wie | —selued 961 duowe re | ὃ Spas 
‘deqg | BOS“ »? EFL, | Burdojaaep Anuensugg | ~* | & |e δ] 5 
y Bg aoe eee fe} Αι. JO 9955 B g 8 ΘΞῈ ° 
5. Εἰ. +62 & | :ϑῦλπος ueony] aumues Ξ 
Ὁ + eins 50 . 
ap??? BA oo Ss 8 
“οτος *NOBENVMAOS 


---..... 


Zornes 
Jo Ay 


is) 
By 


290 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


§ 3. Structure—(a) In 1-5 (cp. Clemen, SX., 1895, 297- 
357) it is sometimes difficult to be sure that any written source 
underlies the narrative; oral tradition of a heterogeneous and 
even of a legendary character may be held to explain most, if 
not all, of the data. There is fair ground for conjecturing, 
however, that Luke used and translated an Aramaic source (or 
sources ; cp. Harnack, 8.7. i. 118 f.). Once or twice the brush- 
work of the final artist becomes plain. Thus 1!*22> jis an 
editorial insertion (Spitta, Weiss, J. Weiss, Jiingst, Moffatt, 
Wellhausen) to emphasise sharply the conditions of the aposto- 
late; 249-47 again, with its proleptic anticipation of the first 
miracle (248, cp. 3}f 416) and its interruption of the connection 
between 24 and 3}, is probably one of the general summaries 
which Luke was fond of inserting in order to mark progress. 
The first real* suggestion of double sources occurs in 4!22= 
527-42, unless the latter is a free composition based on the former 
or on some parallel tradition, like the doublets in the synoptic 
gospels. 4* is an editorial insertion, like 6’, on the lines of 
248-47, but otherwise it is impossible to distinguish the source 
under the revision, though 427-8 sound like an editor’s insertion 
in the prayer (Hilgenfeld, Weiss). 515. is another editorial 
parenthesis or insertion, to mark what Luke believed to have 
been the rapid growth of the church. Here as elsewhere the 
miraculous powers of Peter are enhanced like those of Jesus (cp. 
Lk 4° with Mk 1%, Lk g!! with Mk 684, Lk 72! with Mt 1156), 
Peter, all through, is the prominent figure, and if the source goes 
back to any authority, it is to him; the allusions to John may 
even be editorial (cp. Harnack). 


(i.) There is no reason to deny any connection between 1% and 11%, as 
if the former represented a fresh Jewish-Christian source, and thus to omit 1° 
(Spitta) or 15 (J. Weiss). The mistake of the disciples (15) ἐς tacitly 
corrected by the words of 18 which point to the true extra-national vocation 
of the Christian apostles; besides, the idea of receiving the Holy Spirit 
would not unnaturally suggest to minds trained in Jewish expectations the 
near advent of the Israelitish messianic reign. 

(ii.) Source-phenomena of a special nature lie not only in the midrashic 
story of the death of Judas (1181), but in the preparation of the disciples 
during forty days’ communion for their task (like Moses on Sinai, Ex. 2418), 
and the naive expression of the catholicity of the new gospel (2), which goes 


* Two sources (De Faye, AA. 28f.) for the first part (notably Theologus 
in Preuss. Jahrb., 1897, 223f.) and for the latter part (Batiffol: Etudes 
@ histoire et de théologie positive’, ii. 39 f.) of 2 have been conjectured, 


ACTS 291 


back * to the midrash (cp. Philo, De Decal. 11, Seften. 22), that at Sinai 
all the nations of the world heard God’s voice in their own languages 
(cp. Spitta’s Apgeschichte, 27f.; SR. 788f.; Hausrath, 1 KEG 
Bartlet ; Schmiedel, ZAz. 4785 f.; Pfleiderer’s Urc. ii. 203, etc. ; with the 
συναλιζόμενος of 14cp. Ex 24"), Even the list of countries and peoples in 
2191. is based on rabbinic schemes (cp. von Dobschiitz, Z/V’7., 1902, 407- 
410). Luke, in short, ‘‘ views the Pentecostal gift from the standpoint of 
the Hellenistic litterateur, as a parallel to the giving of the Law, which 
tradition reported to have taken place at Pentecost” (Bacon, /V7. 216). 
The next stratum, which corresponds to this, lies in the speech of Stephen. 
(iii.) The mention of the so-called ‘communism’ (cp. Hicks, 2.2.7]. 
21f.), which in 28-47 leads to nothing, opens up in 4% into (a) a story of 
Barnabas (4°87), and (4) the anecdotes of Ananias and Sapphira (511). The 
latter are introduced as a foil to the conduct of Barnabas, and as an illustration 
of the apostolic power and the popular dread noted in the context (for the 
composite nature of 435-511, cp. Schmiedel in #42. 878-880). Luke is also 
careful to bring out the growth (247 44 514 61: 7) and the popularity (247 310 47! 
518: 26) of the local church, The mixture of general and even vague outlines 
with specific details (which are not always circumstantial) points clearly to 
the editorial use of some early tradition or sources in this section, and the 
presence of dual sources is even suggested by the parallelism of 4!" and 517-4? ;— 


57-43, 41", 
(a) Annas καὶ πάντες οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ | (a) arrest and arraignment of Peter 
arrest the apostles: and John before Annas, etc. : 
(4) their miraculous release : (ὁ) Answer... εἰ δίκαιόν ἐστιν 
arraigned before Sanhedrin : ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑμῶν ἀκούειν 
(c) Speech of Peter and apostles μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ, κρίνατε. 


(πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ | (c) release. 
ἀνθρώποις κτλ.). 


(ὁ) Hitherto (cp. 53% 42 ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ κατ᾽ οἶκον) the Christian 
propaganda has been confined to Jerusalem. Now the forward 
movement begins, but not by any of the apostles. The appoint- 
ment of the Seven (6!) led to three unexpected results: (i.) 
One of their number became the first Christian martyr, after 
making a vigorous attack upon the unbelief of Judaism (68-7), 
and the subsequent persecution led to the first Samaritan mission 
(814°) under the leadership of Philip, another of the Seven. (1.) 
The conversion of Paul is also linked to the episode of 
Stephen’s martyrdom (758 81-8 gf): he is arrested by Jesus on 
his way to counteract the results of Philip’s mission, and from 
the outset he is set apart for the Gentile mission (915), though 


* The Jewish legend is much closer than the Buddhistic story cited by 
Seydel (Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evglien, 1884, 
pp. 27 f.), which only describes hearing the word, not speaking with tongues, 


292 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


his first efforts are devoted to his own countrymen (9%). Peter 
is now suddenly introduced again (92-1118) in a cycle of stories, 
culminating in his conversion of Cornelius a proselyte, and some 
other Gentiles at Ceesarea. This carries on the propaganda a stage 
further than Philip’s incidental conversion of a proselyte (825), 
but Peter is able to persuade the suspicious Jewish Christians of 
Palestine that this unexpected conversion of the Gentiles is the 
work of God. The third (iii.) effect of the Jewish outburst after 
Stephen’s death is the evangelisation of Gentile Antioch, in 
which Paul is eventually summoned to take part (1119-6), 

The source dropped at 84 is resumed in 1119 (so, e.g., Wendt, 
ZTK., 1891, 250f.; Feine, 207f.; De Faye, AA. pp. 72f.; 
Harnack), in order to explain the existence and character of the 
Gentile Christian community at Antioch from which the mission 
of 13! started. Barnabas and Paul are introduced in 13}, as 
if no previous allusion had just been made to either. Hence 
1122f 80 7225 are plainly editorial insertions, either from oral 
tradition or from some other source, in order to emphasise 
Luke’s dominant conception of the Jerusalem-church as the 
patron and promoter of missionary effort (cp. ZBz. 908-913). 
The fifteenth chapter is the watershed of the history, in his view. 
“Practically all that lies between the sixth and the fifteenth 
chapters, 2.6. more than a third part of the book, is devoted to 
the demonstration of the historical problem, how it came to pass 
that there was a mission to the Gentiles at all” (Harnack, 
BNT. iii. p. xxvi). After the council, Paul comes to the front 
as the apostle to the Gentiles, and the rest of the book is 
occupied with his fortunes (cp. J. Weiss, Adsicht, pp. 25 f.). 

(i.) In 6'-8" Luke has used (see Appendix M) sources describing the Acts 
of Stephen and Philip, the leading members of the Seven (6°). Whether 
61-6 comes from a special document (Feine, 184 f. ; De Faye, 61f.) or not, 67 
is inserted by the editor, to mark progress as usual, and the following account 
of Stephen (6°-8?, cp. Zz. 4787-4797) represents a source edited by Luke 
in 6% 11-12 (18). 15, so that what originally recorded an irregular ¢meute, during 
which Stephen defended himself at some length before an exasperated 
audience containing some members of the Sanhedrin, has become the story 
of a trial (as in 4-5). This bisection of the narrative reappears at the close ; 
7° 810. 8 are all editorial touches which not merely attribute Stephen’s 
death to the testimony of judicial witnesses, instead of to the outburst of the 
mob, but link on the source to the subsequent story of Paul by proleptic 
touches which no doubt reflect a genuine tradition (so, ¢.g., Bleek, 7V7. i. 
366f.; B. Weiss, Sorof, Clemen, Kriiger, 7ZZ., 1895, 299; Wendt, 
Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel, Moffatt, Bacon). The significance of the Stephen- 


ACTS 293 


episode is twofold ; it marked one of the crises at which Jewish fanaticism 
only served to accelerate the extension of the new faith to the Gentile world, 
and it denoted the awakening of the Christian church to the consciousness of 
what the universal gospel of Jesus involved (De Faye, 4A. 143 f.). 

(ii.) It is almost arbitrary not only to find, with H. Waitz (ΖΔ Γι, 1904, 
121 f., 1906, 340f.), editorial additions, ¢.g., in 810. 1418. 19, but to regard 
the entire story of 8 as originally Petrine. In this section, z.e. the Acts 
of Philip (84#°), the account of his mission to the Samaritans (85-25) is 
interwoven with the episode of Simon Magus, which may have come from the 
same source, written or oral, as 3-5. The second part (836-30), describing how 
he converted an Ethiopian eunuch, is much more of a unity ; probably it was 
derived from the Cesarean cycle of traditions upon the primitive church, 

(iii.) The first of the narratives of Paul’s conversion (91-8) is written on 
the basis of the second (22) or the third (26) or both (cp. Zimmer, ZW7., 
1882, 465 f., and on the other side M. Goguel, 2᾽ Apétre Paul et Jésus-Christ, 
1904, pp. 40-68). 

(iv.) For the isolated narrative of 12! describing (1) the martyrdom of 
James, Peter’s arrest and escape (8.13), and Herod’s subsequent death (239-28). 
it is natural to suppose that John Mark * (12!* *) was the ultimate source. 
Legendary and historical traits blend inextricably; but there are partial 
parallels in the two Lucan tales of 5'8*3 and 16-84, and the presence of 
many Lucan touches (e.g. ἐπέβαλεν τὰς χεῖρας and κακῶσαι, 1 ; the Hebraism 
προσέθετο συλλαβεῖν, ὃ; ἐκτενῶς, ὃ (cp. 127=Lk 2°); γενόμενος ἐν ἑαυτῷ and 
προσδοκία, 11 ; ἦσαν with ptc. 13; ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς, 14; διϊσχυρίζετο, 1δ; κατασείσας 
and σιγᾶν and ἀπαγγείλατε, 17 ; the litotes οὐκ ὀλίγος, 18; ἀνακρίνω, 19; ὁ δῆμος, 
2 and ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, 533) shows that in any case Luke must have rewritten his 
source, adding 12! 824 24-25 ἃς editorial links. The inconsequent opening and 
the abrupt allusion in v.!” indicate that it was not originally composed for 
its present position, Like the previous stories of Philip (84°) and Peter 
(9°?-10%), it begins at Jerusalem and closes in Cesarea. 


(c) The remainder { of the story (13'%) becomes practically 
a biographical sketch of some phases in Paul’s life and work. 
The unity (especially after 168) grows more marked. But one 
or two passages even in the later sections of the book are 
generally taken to be additions; eg. in 1675-84 (so Weiss, Zeller, 
Weizsicker, Clemen, Forbes, etc.), in 1816. 18-22. 25f (the two 
latter passages { being confused and loosely written ; cp. HVZ. 
672f.), in 19120 (“the writer is here rather a picker-up of 
current gossip, like Herodotus, than a real historian,” Ramsay, 


* As it happens, two of the words peculiar to Acts and Mark occur in 
this passage (σανδάλιά, 128= Mk 6°, and αὐτομάτη, 12°=Mk 4%). Ramsay 
romantically makes Rhoda the fons et orégo of the story. 

+ The recent tendency is to find the second section of Acts from 16! 
onwards. On the entire composition see Bousset’s essay in ZVW. (1914) 
141f., and Norden’s darting but unreliable paragraphs (pp. 312 f.). 

t On Apollos, see 7715. xvi. 241 f., and Schmiedel in 5.82. 262-264. 


2904 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURB 


SPT. 273),* in 202-27 88-85, ἴῃ 20%b-26, and in 2280-2310 (1) 
The widely accepted excision of 2771-26 as a later interpolation 
(cp. HNT. 676f.) in the original We-source, has led Wellhausen 
(pp. 17-19) to conjecture boldly that 27911. $l. 3-38 are also 
secondary insertions made for the purpose of turning an 
anonymous piece of seafaring into a Pauline episode, just as he 
had already taken 19%3-4! to be an independent account of some 
riot which Luke assimilated for his biographical sketch of Paul at 
Ephesus. On the vividness and accuracy of the details in 27, see 
James Smith (Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul*, 1880), Breus- 
ing’s Δία der Alten (1886, pp. 142-205), Gcerne in ΑΖ. 
(1898) 352-375, Hans Balmer (Die Romfahrt des Apostels Paulus 
und die Seefahrtskunde im rim. Kaiseralter, 1905, pp. 269 f.), and 
Montgomery (Z£x.8 ix. 356f.). The phenomena of 2817" have 
suggested dual sources or the loss of the original conclusion (so, 
e.g., Gercke in neue Jahrd. fiir die klass. Alterth., 1901, 17), but, 
although the conclusion is hurried, it is dramatic. 2878 is the 
watchword of the writer’s age, and the ringing ἀκωλύτως of 
2831 echoes the exulting strain of the Lucan writings. 

§ 4. The Journal.—The main structural feature of the latter 
half of the book is the presence of four extracts from a diary 
kept by one of Paul’s companions (161017 2o(#). 5-15 27118 271_ 
2816), “It was customary for distinguished travellers, princes, 
and generals of the ancient Hellenic world to have short diaries 
kept by some companion as an aid to memory, in which the 
stations of the route and perhaps, here and there, notable 
experiences were cursorily set down. For instance, according to 
Hermann Diels, the Awadasis of Xenophon is founded on a 
diary of this description, which Xenophon himself developed 
into an historical work, inserting all kinds of narratives and 
speeches” (von Soden, 7,77: p. 243; cp. Deissmann’s S¢. Paul, 
p. 25, and Norden, 316f.). No features of style or diction in 
these passages differentiate them from the rest of the Lucan 
compositions. They contain over fifty words peculiar to, and 
over seventy specially characteristic of, Luke, and it may be due 
to accident or to subject-matter that they omit such Lucan 


*“*The history of Greek literature presents few other instances of the 
destruction of books, whether for the sake of conscience or for the good of 
the community, or under the authority of the State” (G. H. Putnam, Authors 
and their Public in Ancient Times*, 1894, pp. 118f.3 later and Latin 
instances on pp. 264f.). 


ACTS 295 


favourites or peculiarities as dv with the optative, ἀπὸ τοῦ viv, 
ἀναστάς (-dvres), ἀπόστολος, εἰρήνη, ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις, ἐρωτάω, 
ἔτος, καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, κριτής, λαός, μετὰ ταῦτα, ὅς in attraction, 
πίμπλημι, πράσσω, ῥῆμα, τίς with the optative, τοῦτον (=him), 
ὕψιστος, χάρις, and ὡσεί, while τῇ ἑτέρᾳ (=next day), παραινέω 
(27% 22), and περιαιρέω (2739: 42) are found here alone, so far as 
Luke is concerned. These idiosyncrasies of vocabulary only 
throw into relief the linguistic, stylistic, and mental affinities 
between the We-journal and the rest of Acts. Such data, it may 
be held, do not foreclose the question of the authorship. While 
they bring the We-sections into line with the rest of Acts, they 
leave it an open question (i.) whether the author may not have 
dealt here as freely with some source from another hand as he 
did in the gospel, or (ii.) whether the journal is of his own com- 
posision. On the latter hypothesis, the use of ἡμεῖς, not unlike 
the μέχρις ἐμὲ ἐόν or ἔτι ἐς ἐμὲ ἐόν of Herodotus, is designed to 
mark indirectly but unmistakably the periods at which the author 
was a companion of Paul and an eye-witness of what he records, 
so that the We-sections would represent his own written notes or 
memoranda of a time when he happened to be associated closely 
with the apostle. This conclusion, formerly pressed, e.g., by A. 
Klostermann, Vindtcie Lucane seu de ttinerarti in libro Actorum 
asservaio auctore (1866), pp. 46f.; V. H. Stanton (2.3.4 vil. 336, 
GAD. ii. 254f., 312 f.), and Vogel (Zur Charakteristik des Lukas *, 
1899), has now been put practically beyond doubt by the exhaus- 
tive researches of Hawkins (HS. 182f.) and Harnack (BVT. 1. 
20-87), which support the hypothesis that the diarist was the 
author of the third Gospel and Acts (cp. Ramsay, Pauline and other 
Studies, 301f., and Burkitt, Gospel History and tts Transmission, 
115f.), and that the 7e?s-passages are either bona-fide extracts 
from his journal or (as is less likely) bona-fide reminiscences, 


(a) When the hypothesis of a delicate personal reference is set aside, che 
use of the first person in these sections is held to denote, as in the case of the 
memoirs incorporated in Ezra (727-8*4 91-15) and Nehemiah (11-75 1277), the 
existence of an earlier document written by some companion of Paul. While 
the editor must have worked over his source to some extant, as usual, he 
evidently chose to leave the first person plural intact for the sake, not only 
of vividness, but of assuring his readers that it denoted a diary, or intercal- 
ated passages from the diary, of some early Christian who had been in 
Paul’s company at the time. Instances of this literary practice occur amo: g 
the medizval chroniclers (cp. Schwanbeck, 188 f.). Most of those who are 
weptical on the Lucan authorship hold, however, that the author left the 


206 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURB 


ἡμεῖς ‘in order to designate himself as the companion of Paul’ (Zeller, 
ii. 258 f. ; Schmiedel, etc.), while some admit that the journal in question 
came from Luke—which would explain the Lucan tradition in the early 
church in the same way as the use of Matthew’s Logia connects his name 
with Matthew’s gospel.* When the Lucan authorship of Acts is given up, 
this is the most reasonable theory of the We-passages. Unless some dis- 
location of the text in 204 be assumed (Weizsacker), Timotheus (Schleier- 
macher, Bleek, Sorof, etc.) is ruled out, along with the other six companions 
who accompanied Paul by the inland route from Greece to Troas.t The 
introduction of Timotheus (16!-8), not long before the beginning of the 
journal, does not tell in favour of his authorship; and although after 168 
Silas alone is mentioned, Timotheus is soon referred to in 1714*, The entire 
silence of Acts upon Titus does not preclude the hypothesis that Luke might 
have employed a diary by that companion of Paul (Horst, Krenkel’s Paulus, 
214f.; Jacobsen, O. Holtzmann, Seufert in ZW7, 1885, 367 f.), in which case 
the genuine notice of 2 Ti 4! cannot refer to the imprisonment of Czesarea ; 
for, if Titus had left for Dalmatia, he could not have written Ac 27-28. 

(5) The passages marked by ἡμεῖς need not, however, represent the 
entire original diary. Luke must have omitted certain parts of it;$ 16!” 
has no connection with 208 beyond the fact that Philippi is the scene, nor 
has 2118 with 271; and even if the writer had left Philippi before the final 
scene between Paul and the slave-girl, it is almost impossible to suppose 
that, some years later, he resumed his memoranda without a break in the 
terms of 205%, That the We-sections originally belonged to a larger work 
is fairly certain, Why Luke selected these and only these passages, is 
another and avery delicate question, which is only partly solved by the 
hypothesis that traces of this source may be found elsewhere in Acts, in 
places where Luke has re-written parts of it freely in the third person. 
Probably the substance of 1618-4 2016-8 and 26, at least, belonged to the 
source, though the diarist may not have been an actual eye-witness of the 
scenes, and though Luke, perhaps on that account, has worked them over 
pretty carefully. Spitta, Jiingst, Hilgenfeld, van Manen, and Wendt make 
the We-passages part of larger, more or less complete sources, which run all 
through Acts; Soltau finds a We-record of Luke in 164 ($40) 297-16 211-30. 
1-1 223-29 2311-2. 82-35 2424_9518 2523-37 291 5816. but none of these recon- 
structions, even (cp. ¢.g. 11%) with the aid of the ‘ Western’ text, is much more 
than problematical (cp. Weizsicker, AA. i, 242 f.; McGiffert, 4A. 238 f.). 


* The stylistic data (see below) tell against the hypothesis (Sorof, Gercke, 
Norden, and Soltau) of Acts as the later edition of a Lucan work which 
already included the We-sections. Bacon’s theory (Story of St. Paul, 152f., 
193 f.) that they were a report to the churches of Paul’s collecting mission, 
written by the ‘ brother’ of 2 Co 818-1, is needlessly subtle. 

+ Mayerhoff (Historisch-critische Etnl. in die petrin. Schriften, 1835, pp. 
1-30) argued that Timotheus was the real author of the ‘ Lucan’ writings, 
and that Luke’s share in them was quite subordinate. This fails to explain 
how the latter’s name ever became associated with the books. 

t The second and third extracts both close with om the next day, though 
the Greek phrase is different (τῇ δὲ ἐχομένῃ, 20°; τῇ δὲ ἐπιούσῃ, 217%), 


ACTS 207 


8 5. Authorship.—The strong case for identifying the diarist 
with the historian simplifies the problem of the authorship con- 
siderably. 


To begin with, (a) the third gospel and Acts are by the same author. 
Each has a special vocabulary of its own (Gospel over 250, Acts over 
400 words), due partly to the difference of subject-matter, partly to the 
versatility and compass of Luke’s literary power. On the other hand, 
while Acts has only about a dozen words peculiar to itself and Matthew 
(excluding βαρέως, καμμύω, παχύνομαι, and ἐπιβαίνω as occurring in LXX 
citations), and 14 peculiar to itself and Mk., no fewer than 57 occur in the 
NT only in the third gospel and in Acts (56, if δούλη, which occurs in a 
LXX citation, be omitted). Even the words and phrases absent from one 
and present in the other of the two Lucan books are neither numerous nor 
weighty. Of about 20, used fairly often in Acts and absent from the gospel, 
8 are not used by the other synoptists (ἀναλαμβάνω only in Mk 16'%); 7 
others occur in Mt. and Mk. (γένος, ἐπαύριον, ὅραμα, προσκαρτερεῖν, προσλαμ- 
βάνομαι, τέρας, and χιλίαρχος) where Lk. has no parallel passage, while χωρίον 
only occurs in Mt 26° (Mk 14%?) apropos of Gethsemane, which Lk. does not 
mention. Lk., again, often uses about 30 words and phrases (like ἀγαθοποιέω, 
ἀγαπάω, ἁμαρτωλός, βίος, διαλογίσμος, ἔλεος, νομικός, ὁμοίως, οὐχί. . . ἀλλά 
πλούσιος, and στραφείς), which are absent from Acts, just as 10 or Τι, like 
κελεύω and συνέρχομαι, are much more common in Acts than in its pre- 
decessor. But such variations in diction are of as little cumulative weight as 
the corresponding differences in style, such as the gospel’s entire avoidance 
of the habit, so common in Acts (e.g. 288 59 95 11 1018 19? 2572 26% 238-29) of 
omitting Ae sazd or its equivalents, or of using εἴπας (Ac 797 2233 24” 2755), 
or of beginning a sentence with καὶ νῦν (Ac 3!7 τοῦ 13!) 1657 20°% % 2216 2321 
268), The Lucan ἐγένετο. . καί occurs but once in Acts (57); ἐγένετο 
with a finite verb, and ἄνθρωπε (Lk 5” etc.) never, whilst the latter book 
is comparatively sparing in its employment of terms and phrases like ἀπὸ τοῦ 
νῦν (18°), ἐν τῷ with infin., ἐξέρχομαι ἀπό, καὶ οὗτος (nomin.), ὁ αὐτὸς, ὄνομα 
(=by name), and πλήν, which are specially characteristic of the gospel. 
Again, while the greater frequency of πνεῦμα ἄγιον, dvaxpivw, and ἀπολογέομαι 
in Acts may be due in part to the exigencies of the subject, it is noticeable 
that μὲν οὖν and τε occur far more frequently in the second volume. Yet the 
resemblances far outnumber such variations. The specially Lucan use of 
ἄν or τίς with the optative, of ἄρχοντες (Jewish), of ἐγένετο δέ, of εἴη (optat.), 
of elrev(av) δέ, of ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις, of καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, of καλούμενος with 
eames or titles, of ὀνόματι (=by name), of πᾶς (ἅπας) ὁ λαός, οἵ πρός with 
verbs of speaking, of προστίθεναι," of σύν, of τις with nouns, of rod with 
the infinitive, of ws (= when), etc., runs through both volumes. They corre- 


* ** His use of it probably arose from his medical pursuits, as it was a very 
frequent and necessary word in medical language ” (Hobart, p. 104, adding 
numerous medical citations). 

¢ Again attributed (Hobart, 253, f.), though fancifully, to Luke’s medical 
training, on the ground that the works of Galen show how remarkably often 
this preposition was in a physician’s mouth. 


298 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


spond so closely in size, in style, and in general spirit (cp. Ζ. 5. parallels 
like P=Ac 15%, 1°%=Ac 1, 1%= Ac 117, 213 = Ac 7%, 210 etc. = Ac 257 ete. 
(τί ποιήσωμεν), 4% = Ac 71 (1178), 441= Ac 1839 (542), οὔ] Ξ- Ac 218, r24=Ac7™, 
15%=Ac 20°7, 182=Ac 24* δ᾽ zo!=Ac 4}, 2r5=Ac 6%, 23!=Ac δὲ. 27). Ξ 
Ac 2651) that, although the hypothesis that both works did not come from 
the same pen still crops up occasionally, ¢.g. in the pages of Sorof, Hilgen- 
feld, Soltau, Gercke (‘ Der δεύτερος λόγος des Lukas und die Apgeschichte,’ 
Hermes, 1894, 373 f.), and even Norden (Das antike Kunstprosa, ii. 483 f.), it 
should nowadays be decently interred under the epitaph, ‘non fui, fui, non 
sum.’ Adequate statements of the case for a single author are given by 
Zeller (in Zeller-Overbeck, ii. 213 f.), Friedrich (Das Lukas-Euglm und die 
Apgeschichte, Werke desselben Verfassers, 1890), Jacquier (V7. iii. 7 f.), 
Sir J. C. Hawkins (1.5.2 174-193), and Goodspeed (/BL.. 1912, 92f.). 

(4) The author was a physician. 

The ‘medical’ element in the language of the third gospel and Acts, 
though several times noted (cp. ¢.g. J. D. Winckler, De Luca Evangelista 
medico, Leipzig, 1736), was first fully worked out by Dr. W. K. Hobart 
(The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882), whose materials have recently 
been sifted with results which converge on the thesis that the author of both 
works was a Greek physician, and therefore, inferentially, the Luke of the 
NT. Since the following abstract was written, Harnack’s study (BV7. i. 
175-198 ; cp. Zahn’s Eizn/. ὃ 62; Chase, Credibility of Acts, 13. ; and 
Plummer’s Lue, pp. Ixiiif.) has proved this pretty conclusively. 

Too much stress need not be laid on the fact that in his gospel Luke 
alone quotes the medical proverb, Physician, heal thyself (4%), and omits 
(8%) the disparaging comment of Mk. on the profession, or employs words 
like βάτος (64; the bramble ‘ was extensively used by the ancient physicians,’ 
Hobart), μανία (Ac 26%), πρηνής ἢ (Ac 18), and βρύχειν (Ac 7°); but 
evidence of his early studies and professional training may be discovered in 
his methods of (a) describing the cures of Jesus and others, the choice of the 
technical terms for convulsions (ῥίπτειν) and damage to the system (βλάπτειν 
4°, only elsewhere in NT in Mk 1618) as well as for a doctor’s examination 
(ἐπιβλέπειν, 938), of πλήρης λέπρας (512) after the medical use of πλήρης, of 
the correct medical term παραλελυμένος (518, Ac 933) for the popular παραλυ- 
τικός, as well as the use of the technical classification of fevers into great 
and small (438, so Galen), of ἐνοχλεῖν (618) and ὀχλεῖν (Ac 516), repeatedly 
used by Hippokrates and Galen for diseased persons, of ἀνακαθίζειν (7%, 
Ac 9”, the medical expression for a patient sitting up in bed), of ἔκστασις in 
the sense of a trance (115 22!7, Ac 10"), of ἀνακύπτειν for the straightening 
of the spine (13"), of a remarkable number of professional terms in 10° 
1619. (Hobart, pp. 26 f.) and Ac 318 (pp. 35 ἢ), of ἀποπίπτειν and λεπίς 
(Ac 917-19) ἐπιπίπτειν and ἀχλύς (Ac 1314), and the technical ἀπαλλάσσειν 
(Ac 19'*); (4) in his choice of medical terms to express ordinary ideas or 


* Chase’s theory that πρηνής is a technical medical term for ‘ swollen’ or 
‘inflamed’ (/J7S., 1912, pp. 278f., 415) is discussed by Harnack (7'ZZ., 
1912, 235f.) and Rendel Harris (4/77:, 1914, 127f.). 

+ Thrice at least in the We-journal (20°°=xaragépeoOar and ὕπνος βαθύς, 
2858 πίμπρασθαι and καταπίπτειν, πυρετοί plur. of an individual, 27% 3 


ACTS - 299 


events;* e.g, the substitution, for other terms, of the medical πλήμμυρα, 
προσέῤῥηξεν, συνέπεσε, and ῥῆγμα (Lk 644), of λυσιτελεῖν (177, so Hippo- 
krates), of παρατήρησις (1739) and παρατηρεῖν, of ἱκμάς (med.=juices) and 
συμφύεσθαι (Dioskorides) in 86:7, of πτύσσειν (med. =roll up a bandage) in 
4” (never elsewhere in this sense), of βελόνη (=surgical needle) in 18, of 
παράδοξα (med.=unexpected recovery, etc.) in 5%, of the common medical 
terms διανέμειν (Ac 417), διάστημα (Ac 57), εὔθετος (9° 1435, cp. Ac 27%), 
διανυκτερεύειν (613), διαπραγματεύεσθαι (191°), εὐπορία (Ac 19%, common med. 
term, so vb.), πιέζειν (6%), ἐκλείπειν (med. = failure of pulse, etc.) in 169 and 
2253, of ἀνάπηρος and ζεῦγος in 141% 13, of δραχμή and μνᾶ in 158 and 1018 
(‘the common weights employed in dispensing medicines and in writing 
prescriptions’), of φόβητρα (2111, a rare word which Hippokrates uses of the 
terrifying objects in delirium), of προσδοκία (21%, Ac 124, med. =expectation of 
fatal result, so προσδοκᾶν), of σάλος (21%, med. =tossings of sick), of κραιπάλη 
(21%, med. =drunken nausea), of θεωρία (234°), of λῆρος (24, med. =raving 
in delirium), ἀσκεῖν (Ac 245, med. = practise), περιμένειν (Ac 14), ἀποκατάσ- 
τασις (37!), ἀσιτία (in medical sense, cp. J. R. Madan, /7S. vi. 116), αὐγή 
(201, med. =light), διαπρίειν (55% 754), ἐκδιηγεῖσθαι (15%, cp. Hobart, p. 229), 
ἐκπηδᾶν (1414), ἐπακροᾶσθαι (16%, med. =auscultation), ἐπικουρία (26), ζήτημα 
(15? etc., med. =a disputed point), καταστέλλειν (19%), τιμωρεῖν (22° 2611), 
ὑποζώννυμι (2717), F ὑποστέλλειν (20% 27, in sense of ‘ withhold’), χρῶς (1913; 
‘the use of x., to mean the body, not the skin, continued in medical 
language from Hippokrates to Galen,’ Hobart), and φιλανθρώπως (273) ; t 
(c) in his practice of avoiding Mt.’s use of words like μαλακία or βασανίζειν 
for sickness (the former=effeminacy or delicacy, the latter=examine, in med. 


παραινεῖν, med. =opinion of doctor) a medical flavour is to be detected ; even 
the collocation of ἄσιτος and διατελεῖν (Ac 2733) is found in Galen. Terms 
like ἐρείδειν, διαφεύγειν, and κολυμβᾷν (in sense of swimming) were also 
in medical use. 

* The eleven compounds or derivatives of βάλλειν, the five of νεύειν, the 
four of ψύχειν, the three of τρέχειν, and the two of ἐλαύνειν, peculiar to 
Luke, are all characteristic medical expressions (Hobart, pp. 137-146, 166 f., 
191 f., 206 f.); while Luke’s preference for terms like ὑπερῷον instead of 
ὑπερῴη, for ὑπερορᾷν, συγχέειν and σύγχυσις, συναρπάζειν, μεστοῦσθαι, 
προσπήγνυμι, διασπείρειν, διάγνωσις and διαγινώσκειν, ἐνέδρα, ἐνεδρεύειν, 
κατόρθωμα, κατὰ λόγον, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, ἐπιμελῶς, εὐθυμεῖν(- ὡς), and the three 
main medical terms for ‘‘stimulating” (ἐπεγείρειν, παροτρύνειν, and προ- 
τρέπειν), lies parallel. Hippokrates also, in his epistles (ula πόλεων οὐκ 
ἄσημος), uses ἄσημος of a city (Ac 2133), and ἀναδιδόναι of a letter being 
delivered (Ep. 1275, cp. Acts 2388), 

Ὁ This rare term for undergirding a ship was common in medical parlance, 
being applied to the membrane or pleura which undergirt and supported 
the thorax; so that, as Hobart suggests (273), its application in this case 
may have been natural to Luke, particularly as a ship’s sides were called 
πλευραί. Similarly θέρμν (28%), for θερμότης, is the usual medical term for 
heat. 

t Both Hippokrates and Galen (Hobart, 296-297) were strong upon 
φιλανθρωπία as an essential note of the true physician. 


200 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


terminology), and the confusion* between συκομορέα and συκάμινος (17° 194), 
**Nearly all the alterations and additions which the third evangelist has 
made in the Marcan text are most simply and surely explained from the 
professional interest of a physician” (Harnack, BV7. iii. 187). As this 
‘medical’ element is spread over both the third gospel and Acts, instead of 
being confined to the ‘ We-sections,’ it corroborates the argument, which is 
also the tradition of the second century (as early as Marcion, for the third 
gospel) that the author of the third gospel and Acts was the Luke of Col 4\, 
Philem 33, and 2 Ti 419. 

The linguistic data, however, do not support the common inference that 
Luke was strongly affected by Paul’s style and language, and that therefore 
he was either a Paulinist or acquainted with the Pauline epistles. Out of 
about 98 words peculiar to Lk. and Paul in the NT, 17 occur only in the 
Pastoral epistles, and 8 in Ephesians, which reduces the number at once 
to 73. Of these, Mt. and Mk. had no occasion to use one or two like 
ἀροτριάω, while διαγγέλλω, μήτρα, στεῖρος, and σωτήριον (in Paul, only in Eph 
6!7 and Tit 2") occur in one or the other writer merely as LXX quotations. 
This leaves about 68 at most, of which we must exclude in all fairness 
the following 27, viz. ἄδηλος, αἰχμαλωτίζω, dvafdw, ἀναλύω, ἀνταπόδομα, 
ἀνταποκρίνομαι, ἀσφάλεια, ἄτοπος, διερμηνεύω, δόγμα, ἐγγράφομαι, ἔνδοξος 
(Lk. of things, Paul of persons), ἐπαναπαύομαι, ἐπέχω, ἐφίστημι, ἡσυχάζω, 
κυριεύω (Paul, metaph.), οἰκονομία (Paul, metaph.), παγίς, πληροφορέω, 
σπουδαίως, συγκλείω (Paul, metaph.), συναντιλαμβάνομαι (Paul, relig. sense), 
συνευδοκέω, συνοχή, ὑπωπιάζω, and ψαλμός (Lk. only of Psalter), of which 
some (to which ἄρα, καταξιοῦμαι, μεθίστημι, προκόπτω, σκοπέω, and συγχαίρω 
must be added) are used in different constructions, and all in senses which 
are very different in the two writers. Even of the remaining 35, quite half 
are neither favourite nor characteristic terms in either writer, while the 
numerical preponderance, as compared with Mt. and Paul (about 22) or Mk. 
and Paul (about 20), is not specially significant. So far as the internal 
evidence suggests, Luke did not use any of Paul’s epistles ; his acquaintance 
with Paul’s movements and ideas is drawn from oral tradition or personal 
reminiscence, not from the reading of his correspondence. Some critics still 
(e.g. Soltau) consider that the Pauline speeches as well as the narratives are 
drawn from materials provided by the Epistles (so formerly Jacobsen, of. ἐξέ. 
pp. 8f.), but there is no real evidence to render this a necessary hypothesis 
(cp. Sabatier’s essay in Brbliotheqgue de Pécole des hautes études, i. 1889, 
202 f.; Moffatt, HV7. 416f.; Jacquier, V7. 111. 96f., and Zahn, ZV7Z. 
iii. 118f.). The juxtaposition of Acts and the Pauline epistles in the 
Canon is apt to produce an optical illusion, until it is remembered that 
Acts was not written to be read alongside of the apostle’s correspondence, 
and that it really contains nothing which Luke could not have obtained 
elsewhere. 


* Noted by Dioskorides. The distinction was familiar to physicians, who 
had occasion to use both in their prescriptions. 

¢ Add perhaps δεκτός, in Lk. of persons only, in Paul (Phil 418) of things, 
2 Co 6? and Lk 4" being LXX citations. It is uncertain whether ἐφνίδιος 
(WH) should be read, instead of αἰφνίδιος, in Lk 2154, 


ACTS 301 


§ 6. Characteristics and aim.—(a) It is no longer necessary 
to controvert the theory that, when Luke wrote, Jewish and 
Gentile Christianity required to be reconciled, or that the 
parallelism between Peter and Paul is wholly due to the 
historian’s pragmatism. Luke’s position is that of the later 
church, as reflected, e.g., in Mt 281820; the Gentile mission was 
carried out by the twelve in obedience to a revelation of Jesus 
(cp. HD. i. 158f., 213f.). According to Acts, Peter, as the 
leader of the apostles, not only took the first step in this 
direction (10!), but claimed that this was his commission 
(Ac 15"); also, between the twelve and Paul there was no vital 
difference on the burning question of Gentile Christianity. 
Luke smoothes over the crucial antagonism which Gal. 1-2 
reveals. He prefers to emphasise the common loyalty of both 
sides to the gospel of Jesus; ‘trop loyal pour condamner son 
maitre Paul, trop orthodoxe pour ne pas se ranger ἃ l’opinion 
officielle qui prévalait, il effaga les différences de doctrines pour 
laisser voir seulement le but commun que tous ces grands 
fondateurs poursuivirent” (Renan, ii. p. xxiii). His whole treat- 
ment of the question breathes the air of an age when the rights 
of Gentile Christianity had long ago been won, and when even 
an admirer of Paul, especially in writing for the particular object 
defined in Lk αἴ, was more concerned to emphasise the pro- 
vidential development upon which the church looked back than 
to revive the bitter memories of a bygone phase of controversy. 


This irenical attitude, with its idealising spirit, is not inconsistent with 
the Lucan authorship, even though we assumed that Luke was familiar with 
the exact course of events as, ¢.g., Paul describes them in Gal 21". A man 
may surely be the friend and physician of a great church-leader, without 
necessarily sharing or even understanding all his religious opinions and 
without assenting to his ecclesiastical policy in every respect. Luke had 
more in his mind than to be a protagonist of Paul, and we have no right to 
demand that consciously or unconsciously he must come into line with the 
apostle. In spite of the arguments or rather the assumptions to the contrary,* 


* This idea underlies the criticisms passed by Schiirer (7ZZ., 1906, 405- 
408), Bousset (7%., 1908, 185-205), Clemen (7R., 1907, 97-113, and 
H7., 1910, 780f.), and Lake (DAC. i. 719f.) on the Lucan hypothesis as 
argued by Harnack (BN7. iv 121f., 7ZZ., 1906, 466-468) and Stanton 
(GHD, ii, 241-255). The ‘theological’ attitude of Acts, when it is not 
isolated and exaggerated, does not seem incompatible with the Lucan 
authorship, for which the literary evidence is fairly conclusive, provided that 
it is not mixed up with extravagant claims for Luke as a historian, or with 
harmonising, conservative expedients. 


302 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


on the part of conservative and radical critics alike, it does not follow that 
Acts, if written by Luke, must tally, historically and theologically, with Paul, 
or that Luke’s statements must invariably exhibit (cp. p. 268) agreement with 
the apostle’s epistles. Luke’s object was neither to correct nor to elucidate 
these epistles. He was nota Paulinist (cp. Harnack, BVT. i. 139f., iv. 30-89), 
and even had he been an eye-witness of certain events, that would not 
necessarily prevent him from describing them years afterwards in semi- 
historic fashion. To a modern reader it does appear difficult to understand 
how any one who had shared in the Pauline mission could describe the 
relation of baptism and the Spirit, the glossolalia, and above all the relation 
between Paul and the pillar-apostles, as Luke has done; but once allowance 
is made for the time at which and the purpose for which Luke wrote, once 
the idea that he was a Paulinist is abandoned, and once we recognise the 
freedom with which he treated the sources and traditions at his disposal for 
Acts as for his gospel, the admitted difficulties can no longer break through 
the strong thicket of linguistic evidence in favour of the Lucan authorship. 

Luke’s idealisation of the primitive council at Jerusalem does not prevent 
him from mentioning the fate of Ananias and Sapphira. Nor, although he 
ignores the scene at Antioch, does he hesitate to tell how Paul lost his temper 
twice. There were physicians and physicians among the historians of the 
ancient world. One of them, Kallimorphos, is pilloried by Lucian (de Ast. 
conscrib. 16) for having written a προοίμιον ὑπέρψυχρον to his history of the 
Parthians, in which he vaunted: οἰκεῖον εἶναι ἰατρῷ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν, εἴ ye 
ὁ Ἀσκληπιὸς μὲν ᾿Απόλλωνος υἱὸς, ᾿Απόλλων δὲ Μουσηγέτης καὶ πάσης παιδείας 
ἄρχων. In Acts there is no empty rhetoric. There are no eulogies of the 
early Christians, not even of Paul. Luke knew, better even than the author 
of the Vita Agricole, what Lucian meant when he spoke of the broad gulf 
between history and panegyric (de hist. conscrib. 7, ob στενῷ τῷ ἰσθμῷ 
διώρισται καὶ διατετείχισται ἡ ἱστορία πρὸς τὸ ἐγκώμιον) ; his literary taste, as 
well as his religious feeling, prevented him from painting the great apostle of 
the Gentiles with a halo. 


(2) A similar consideration bears upon Luke’s treatment of 
the supernatural. On the one hand, the presence of miraculous 
anecdotes (cp. Harnack, BVT. iii. 133-161) is no proof that 
they are unprimitive. A comparison, eg., of the historical 
traditions gathering round figures like St. Patrick or even 
Thomas ἃ Becket will show that it is the most natural thing in the 
world for such stories to spring up within a man’s lifetime, and 
the mushroom of legend appeared under certain conditions as 
rapidly in the East as in the West. This applies in some degree 
to the miracles in Acts as well as to those in the gospels. On 
the other hand, their presence in Acts is no disproof of Luke’s 
authorship.* He took most of them from his available sources 

* Luke’s three defects as a historian, according to Harnack (BN7. iii. 


p. xxxix), are credulity, a tendency to be careless and inaccurate, and a 
tendency to work up important situations. Still, he adds, ‘‘ich halte ihn 


ACTS 303 


and inserted them for the sake of bringing out a point vividly. 
It is psychologically accurate to hold that even the special class 
of tales about demoniac possession, which as an educated 
physician he might be supposed to have disbelieved, were 
accepted by him on the score of his Christian beliefs (cp. J. 
Naylor in H/., 1909, 28-46: “it is certain that the phenomena 
he witnessed in Christian circles made it easy for him to believe 
in demoniac causes of diseases”; ‘‘he was led to believe in the 
power of faith in the sick, and of personality in Paul and Christ, 
to work marvellous cures and do mighty works”). The super- 
naturalism of stories like 21: 5l-11 121. 1625f 1011. and 20%, 
which are near the level of popular Oriental tales, does not tell 
against either the likelihood that in some cases a nucleus of 
historic fact underlies the moral apologue, or the probability that 
the writer (or editor) was an educated man who, like Luke, must 
have been familiar with, ¢.g., the real glossolalia of the Pauline 
churches. We know so little about Luke that it is impossible to 
determine how far he worked in the spirit of the advice given by 
Lucian (de hist. conscrib. 60) to his friend Philo: καὶ μὴν καὶ 
μῦθος εἴ τις παρεμπέσοι, λεκτέος μέν, οὐ μὴν πιστωτέος πάντως, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐν μεσῳ θετέος τοῖς ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλωσιν εἰκάσουσι περὶ αὐτοῦ" σὺ & 
ἀκίνδυνος καὶ πρὸς οὐδέτερον ἐπιρρεπέστερος. Probably, his 
attitude to the miraculous stories of Acts was more naive. 
There is no hint of any Blougram-like reserve in his method 
of narrating these episodes; on the contrary, we can feel the 
same realistic and materialising tendency which appears in his 
recasting of the resurrection stories. ‘There is little force, there- 
fore, in the argument that his version of the glossolalia in 21" 
could not have come from an eye-witness of the phenomena, e.g., 
at Corinth. Even if Luke knew the latter, this would not have 
prevented him from repeating the embellished and circumstantial 
miracle which he found in his source. “That it involved a 
miracle attracted rather than repelled him. . . . He lovesa good 
miracle” (P. Gardner in Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 390). 

(ὦ A subordinate aim is to exhibit the political inoffensive- 
ness of Christianity. Paul is never formally condemned by the 
Roman authorities (cp. the conduct of the proconsuls in 1312 
1812 etc., and of the Asiarchs in 1981); Luke skilfully omits any 
innerhalb der griechischen Historik trotz seiner offenkundigen Gebrechen 


und Leichtglaubigkeiten fiir einen respektablen Berichterstatter, Schriftsteller 
und Zeugen” (7ZZ., 1906, 467; cp. Wendland, HAN7, i. 2. 324 f., 330f.). 


304 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


allusion to the three occasions when he had been fingged by 
lictors (2 Co 11%), and emphasises his Roman citizenship. 
As in the third gospel (cp. ¢g. 2020-26), so in its sequel, the 
historian points out that Christians were admittedly loyal (cp. 
1812. 1937 2329 2518f. 25 2631), though it is hardly fanciful to detect 
in his references to ἐξουσία or the authority of civil powers 
(in his gospel 4&7 || Mt 49, 1245 || Mt 1028, 2275 || Mk ro and 
Mt 20”) a less favourable view than that of Acts (cp. E. A. 
Abbott, Dat. 1565-1571), where the allusions to Roman officials 
are upon the whole respectful and intended to be irenical. He 
is careful to expose the hollowness of the charge of sedition 
brought against Christians especially by malevolent Jews, and 
such passages further contain an implicit plea for the toleration 
by Rome of Christianity as a religio Uicita no less than of the 
Judaism from which it sprang and of which, as Luke is careful 
to point out, it forms the true consummation. 

Some (e.g. D. Plooij, Hx.® viii. 511 f., xiii. r08f.; cp. P. I. Melle in 
Theol. Studién, 1915, 111 f.) even hold that Acts was the defence entered by 
Luke at Paul’s trial before Nero on the charges of 24°; J. Weiss (Adsicht, 
54f.) more moderately brings out the author’s desire to portray the innocent 
character of Christianity in view of suspicions aroused in part by the charges 
levelled at it by Jews (cp. 4.9. p. 31, ἃ propos of 16% δ] “Die hochmiitig- 
geringschitzige Anschauung, die in der Denunciation zum Ausdruck kommt, 
wird nachtraglich glanzend zuriickgewiesen. Die apostel sind nicht herge- 
laufene Agenten einer orientalischen Nation, in deren Dienste sie eine 
staatlich nicht unbedenkliche Propaganda treiben, sie sind Romer so gut wie 
die Richter auch und wollen nach romischen Recht beurteilt werden. Was 
aber hier von den Aposteln gesagt ist, das gilt im Sinne des Verf. vom Christen- 
thum iiberhaupt”). So far as this bears on the problem of the date, it 
leaves any period open after Nero. The motive would be as relevant shortly 
after Domitian’s persecution as before it, since the vehement-anti-Roman tone 
of the Apocalypse was by no means normal. 

(4) For Luke’s remarkable degree of accuracy in geographical, 
political, and social data, it is sufficient to refer to the essays of 
Lightfoot (Zssays on ‘ Supernatural Religion,’ 1889, 291-302) and 
Vigouroux (Le Mouveau Testament et les découvertes archéologiques 
modernes, Paris, 1896, pp. 183-332), and to the epoch-making 
researches of Sir W. M. Ramsay (CRZ., chs. ii.—vili. etc.). 
Still, he must be judged by the canons of his age, and in the 
light of his opportunities. Not only as regards the origins of the 
Palestinian church and mission, but even on the earlier part of 
Paul’s career, he is plainly writing at second-hand. As the 
book proceeds, the level of historicity rises on the whole. The 


ACTS 308 


nearer Luke comes to his own period, the less liable he is to dis- 
crepancies and errors, although even here the ordinary conditions 
of the period must be taken into account in an evaluation of his 
testimony as an eye-witness. For the first part of the story, 
however, he had to rely upon such information of primitive 
Christians as may have been available, or upon certain written 
sources, ¢.g., for Stephen and Philip. Thus in the circles to which 
he had access it is altogether likely that the crisis at Antioch 
and Jerusalem would sometimes be viewed very differently from 
what Paul considered to be its real inwardness,* and the lapse 
of nearly half a century was certain to alter not only the stand- 
point of his own judgment, but also the memories upon which 
he drew. Owing to distance from the time and place, he was 
imperfectly acquainted with much that transpired in Palestine 
during the early decades of the Christian movement. But here 
as elsewhere he knew more than he chose to put down. His 
omissions are not invariably due to lack of available knowledge ; 
they are sometimes intentional. The choice of episodes, the 
relative scope assigned to them, the passing over of years either 
silently or in a sentence, the ignoring of a figure like Titus, the 
indifference towards such movements of Christianity in the East 
as Peter’s evangelisation of Asia Minor and Paul’s mission in 
North Galatia,—all these phenomena show that Luke had no 
intention of writing the history of early Christianity, and that 
even his reconstruction of that history requires to be reset at 
more points than one (cp. Wendt in /7/. xii. 141-161). 

The speeches in the earlier part may represent not untrust- 
worthily the primitive Jewish-Christian preaching of the period 
(Peter, 115-22 214-36 312-26 48-12 29-32; Gamaliel,t 5%8%). “ΤῸ 
the doctrinal discourses of Peter we may in a certain sense 
grant that they faithfully represent the primitive preaching of 
the messiah by the apostles, and that so far they possess a 
certain originality ” (Overbeck).t This is due, not to any verba- 
tim reports or Hellenistic versions being available, but to the 


* Cp. Franke in SX. (1890) 668 f., J. Warschauer in Mew World (1898), 
pp. 722-749, and Watkins in St. Paul's Fight for Galatia (pp. 94 f.). 

+ Chase, Credibility, pp. 122-159 (pp. 167 f., on Paul’s speeches). 

t So especially Riehm, of. cit. pp. 126 f. ; Chase, of. c#t. 105 f.; W. Lock 
(Zxp.‘ vii. 178-190) ; and E, F. Scott’s The Beginnings of the Church (1914). 
Mayerhoff (Hind. in die petrin. Schriften, 218-233) makes them, as well as 
Stephen’s and Paul’s, free compositions of the author. 

20 


306 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


excellent historical sense of the author, who, while following the 
ordinary methods of ancient historiography in the composition of 
such speeches, was careful to avoid moulding and shaping his 
materials with a freedom which should obliterate the special 
cast of their aim and temper. These materials were probably 
furnished in the main by oral tradition. Preaching so con- 
tinuous as we know that of Peter to have been, would leave 
definite reminiscences of its general type and tenor. A skil- 
ful writer, having access to circles where such Jewish Christian 
ideas had been cherished and still lingered (¢.g. John Mark), 
would find little difficulty in composing discourses such as these, 
which would harmonise satisfactorily with the period he was 
engaged in depicting. Of the later speeches, that at Miletus is 
probably nearest to a summary of the original words of Paul; 
the others, for the most part, reflect in the main Luke’s historic 
sense of what was appropriate to the speaker and situation. 
Stephen’s speech is the most notable exception; it obviously 
was derived from a special source. 


The letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix (Ac 23%) might have been 
verbally copied from the original, if Luke had had access to the archives or 
private papers of Felix. Instances of this are not unknown (e.g. Sallust, 
Cati/. 34, 33 44, 5), but they are extremely rare, and the more probable 


- hypothesis is that the letter, like the speeches of the history, must be ascribed 


-- © 


to Luke himself, in common with the universal practice of his age. The same 
holds true of the letter in 1 553. (cp. Harnack, BN 7. i. 219-223), though this 
document probably embodies a source as its nucleus (see above, pp. 42-43). 


The last-named passage opens up a cluster of textual, literary, 
and historical problems which have a profound bearing upon the 
authorship and authority of Acts. The problem was, what are 
the conditions upon which Gentile Christians can be saved, é.e. 
participate in the messianic reign of Jesus the Christ? The 
strict Jewish Christians of the capital (τινες τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως 
τῶν Φαρισαίων πεπιστευκότες) insisted on circumcision and the 
complete observance of the Mosaic law. A keen controversy 
took place among the apostles and elders. Finally, Peter 
repudiated this claim on the score of practice. Facts had 
already proved that Gentiles could believe in Jesus Christ and 
receive the Spirit which guaranteed membership in his kingdom, 
without submitting to the law. Barnabas and Paul corroborate 
this from their own experience in the mission-field, while James 
clinches it by an appeal to messianic prophecy, and proposes 


ACTS 307 


that, though the claim for legal submission should be repudiated, 
the Gentile Christians should be enjoined to abstain from 
εἰδωλόθυτα, αἷμα, πνικτά, and πορνεία. A formal decree (ἔδοξεν 
τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν) to this effect, in the shape of a 
pastoral epistle, is dispatched to the Gentile Christians of 
Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. The course of events is not so clear, 
however, as at first sight appears. No proper motive is given 
for the sudden interference of the narrower Palestinian 
Christians with the church at Antioch (151). Psychologically, 
the reaction would come better after 112-22; it is difficult to 
see how such a recrudescence of legalism could take place after 
Peter had settled, as he is said to have done, the question of the 
rights of uncircumcised Gentiles to membership in the church 
(1178), Furthermore, the decrees of 1525 are sent not to the 
Pauline churches in Lystra, Iconium, etc., but to the Gentile 
Christians of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia ; and if they were merely 
meant to meet a local emergency, this is hardly Luke’s concep- 
tion of their place and purpose (see Appendix N). 


The silence of Paul in Gal 2 upon the decree of Ac 15 tells against the 
historicity of the latter, if the fourfold prohibition was its main message, and 
if it was promulgated at the Jerusalem council. It is conceivable that Paul 
might have agreed to a number of concessions for the sake of peace and 
harmony, but ‘‘that he consented to, or was party to, a demand that his 
converts should observe these four legal conditions is not only disproven by 
his own clear words, but by the absence of any such precept in his letters to 
Gentile churches on this matter” (Forbes, p. 54). If he had distributed the 
decrees as Luke says he did (164), it may be questioned if he could or would 
have treated them in his epistles as a guantzté négligeable (cp. EBz. 916f.; 
Bacon, Story of St. Paul, 138f., 151f.). Unless, therefore, the authenticity 
of the decree or the Lucan authorship is to be abandoned, the alternatives 
apparently are (i.) to adopt the Western reading of Ac 15, as has been done 
recently by Hilgenfeld (ZW7T., 1899, 138 f.), G. Resch in a careful monograph 
TU. xiii. 3, 1905; cp. Zxp." iii. 564f.), R. Steinmetz, Das Afosteldehret 
(1911), and with vigour by Harnack (BT. iii. 248f.); or (ii.) adhering 
to the ordinary text, to conjecture that Luke has antedated a decreet 
which only came into existence at a later period in the history of the 
Jerusalem church, viz. some time between Paul’s composition of Galatians 


* Halévy (#S., 1902, 228 f.), like Bentley, proposes to read πορκείας or 
χοιρείας, on the ground that the change of this into πορνείας would be more 
intelligible than wzce versa, and that this reading is in line with the other 
allusions to food. 

t+ Achelis, Urc, pp. 60f. The Western form is rejected after careful 
scrutiny by Diehl, Coppieters (RB., 1907, 34-54), and A. Seeberg (Die becden 
Wege und das Aposteldekret, 1906). 


. 
o 


308 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


and Corinthians on the one hand and his arrival (21) at Jerusalem on 
the other (so, especially, Weizsicker, 44. i. 313f.; Grimm, SX., 1880, 
622 f.; McGiffert, 4A. 215f.; Pfleiderer, Ure. ii. 241 f. ; von Dobschiitz, 
Ure. 152f.; R. Knopf, SVT. i. 2. 65 ; Bousset ; Diehl, ZVW., 1909, 277-296), 
in any case prior to the composition of the Apocalypse (213). The decree 
would thus be the work of James and his party, whether brought down to 
Antioch by the emissaries of the former (McGiffert, Bacon) or, more probably, 
promulgated at some later period. It is noticeable that in 21 James tells 
Paul about it, as if the latter had not heard of it before. This tells in favour 
of the second hypothesis, as against either the former or the bolder conjecture 
that Gal 2!-!° did not refer to the scene of Ac 15 at all (see above, pp. 100f.), 
The shorter Western form of 15%, which omits (so Wellhausen and Lake) 
καὶ πνικτῶν and inserts, between πορνείας and ὧν, the words καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλετε 
ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσθαι ἑτέρῳ μὴ ποιεῖν, ἀφ᾽, with φερόμενοι ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι between 
mpatere and ἔρρωσθε, cannot have arisen later than the middle of the second 
century, as it is guaranteed not only in D but in Irenzeus (iii. 12, 14), Tertullian 
(de pudic. 12), and Cyprian ( Zestim. iii. 119). On the other hand, it resembles 
a moral catechism rather than the decree in its historical setting, and its 
secondary character, as compared with the canonical text, is fairly obvious. 
Its protest against the exaggeration of the ceremonial law, at the expense of 
its ethical elements, was both timely (cp. 4 Mac 518° ; Schiirer, G/V. ii. 464 f.) 
and in accord with the principles of Jesus ; but, instead of the ambiguous 
εἰδωλόθυτον, εἰδωλολατρεία would have been more apposite. The ‘ Western’ 
reading avoids the difficulty of the superfluous πνικτῶν after αἶμα (in sense 
of ‘tasting blood’), and also of understanding how Paul could be silent 
on the decree in Gal 2. Such injunctions would only be the obvious ethical 
maxims of the Christian catechism (aljua=murder). But, on the other hand, 
this neutral interpretation blunts the point of the council, and makes it hard 
to see how the controversy could have attained the proportions of Gal 21". 
This difficulty is bound up with another, relating to the visit of Paul to 
Jerusalem in 11-12%, The omission of this visit in Gal 117-21 has caused 
keen perplexity to editors of Acts and of that epistle. Why did Paul pass it 
over? Not because it was too hurried and short (Usteri), nor because he * 
was prevented from going, perhaps at the last moment (so, ¢.g., Neander, 
Meyer), nor because the envoys prudently stopped in Judzea (so, e.g., Credner, 
Bleek, in contradiction to 12%), Such harmonistic expedients are not 
satisfactory. It would be fairer to argue that Paul, in writing Galatians, 
aimed not at giving any complete chronicle of his visits to Jerusalem, but 
only at mentioning those which affected his claim to a divine commission 
independent of the twelve. The two visits at which this was called, or 
might be supposed to have been called, in question, were his first (Gal 178) 
and his third (Gal 215). The second visit, recorded in Ac 11% 12, afforded 
no chance of misconception ; his character and doctrine were not in dispute 
then, and the Galatians needed no explicit description of that journey. 
Hence he could pass it over, in his rapid survey, as having no bearing on 
the authority and independence of his gospel (so, ¢.g., Godet, Hort, Light- 


* Renan thinks that Barnabas alone conveyed the cha/uka, and Zimmer- 
mann deletes καὶ Σαύλου (SK., 1901, 454). 


ACTS 309 


foot, Blass, G. H. Gilbert, Watkins (pp. 170f.), Steinmann’s Adfassungszert d. 
Galaterbriefes, 127 f.). This is a legitimate hypothesis. Paul is not writing 
a protocol in Gal 1-2, which would be falsified were he to omit any visit to 
the Jewish capital ; all his argument requires is a note of the occasions when 
he was brought into contact with the apostles at Jerusalem, and of this there 
is no mention in Ac 11%, which seems even to exclude (by the reference to 
the elders) any communication between them and the Cilician evangelist. 

Those who are dissatisfied with this have the choice of three alternatives. 
(a) They may delete the visit of Ac 1180 12% as unhistorical (so, ¢.g., Zeller, ° 
Overbeck, Hilgenfeld, Weizsacker, Sabatier, B. Weiss, Jiilicher, Clemen’s 
Paulus, i. 215 f. ; Forbes), whether the historian confused (H. J. Holtzmann) 
the visit of Gal 2! with the collection visit of 1 Co 164 (which is therefore 
passed over at Ac 19”), or whether he inserted 11°° and 12% (with 1122-26) 
erroneously in the source which lay before him (Wendt, SA&., 1892, 270f.). 
Others, ¢.g. Spitta (179 f.), Pfleiderer, Schwartz, Wellhausen, Wendland, 
and McGiffert (4.4. 170f.) improve upon this by supposing (4) that the visit 
of 1130 12% was the same as that of 15)", and that Luke, finding these two nar- 
ratives of what was the same event, supposed them to refer to different incidents. 
This is not impossible, but the two narratives are hardly parallel enough. 
The object of the one visit is the conveyance of funds; the object of the 
other (as of Gal 215) is a question of religious principle. This consideration 
rules out with equal certainty (c) the bolder and even less probable hypothesis 
which indentifies 1189 12% (not 1515) with Gal 21:10 (so, ¢.g., Belser, Ezn/. 
168 f. ; Ramsay, Weber, Gutjahr, after Fritzsche’s Opuscula, 233f.). Luke 
(in 11-12”) never alludes to the circumcision-problem or to any trouble 
over Gentile Christians; there is not a syllable about the presence of 
John, Peter, and James (as in Gal 24“) ; the relative prominence of Paul in 
the two passages is too different to admit of both referring to the same event, 
even when due allowance is made for the natural emphasis on his own 
personality in the epistle; and it is unlikely that the circumcision-question 
could again emerge and be decided (as in Ac 15), after it had been once 
settled (as in Gal 2119 ; see above, pp. 100f.). (d) It is enough to mention * 
the identification of Paul’s visit (in Gal 215) with the fourth recorded by Luke 
(viz. in Ac 18”). The visit of Ac 151* would then be passed over by Paul— 
an omission which may be described as incredible. 


§ 7. The text.—The remarkable phenomena of the ‘ Western’ 
text had been already noted by earlier NT critics like Simon, 
Hug, and Credner (Zin. 1. 452-519 f.), as well as by Lagarde 
in his monograph de WTI ad versionum orientalium fidem edendo 
(1857), and the problem of their origin and value has been 
investigated by A. Resch (Agrapha, pp. 30f.), J. R. Harris (4 
Study of Codex Beza, 1891; Four Lectures on the Western Text, 


* So, ¢.g., Kohler, Versuch uber die Abfassungszett der epist. Schriften im 
NT τι. der Apocalypse (1830), pp. 7 f. ; Wieseler’s Chronologie (pp. 184 f.), and 
Bertheau, Zznzge Bemerkungen tiber die Stelle Gal 2 τι. thr Verhdltniss zur 
Apeeschichte (1854), pp. 3f. Cp. Baur’s critique of Wieseler in 7heol. Jahré. 
(1849) 457-480, and M. Meinertz on Ac 15% and Gal 2" (AZ., 1907, 392-402). 


310 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURB 


1894), F. H. Chase (Zhe Old Syriac Element in the text of Codex 
Beza), and Ramsay (CRE., ch. viii.), amongst others (cp. HVT. 
611f.). The bearing of the question upon the third gospel and 
Acts was brought to the front specially by F. Blass, who in a 
series of monographs (SK., 1894, 86-119; WVKZ., 1895, 712f.; 
Hermathena, ix. 1211. 291f.; SK, 1896, 436f., 1898, 530f., 
1900, 5f.) argued that Luke, like several ancient authors, re- 
edited his works, and that the Western text represents the church- 
edition of the gospel and the first draft of Acts. The theory 
won the support, more or less, of Hilgenfeld (ZWZ., 18096, 
625f., 1899, 138f., and in his edition of Acts), Belser (ΖΌ., 
1897, 303f. etc.), Haussleiter (Zheol. Lit. Blatt., 1896, pp. 
105f.), Driseke (ZWT., 1894, 192f.), Zockler (in Greifswalder 
Studien, 1895, pp. 129f.), and Nestle (Christliche Welt, 1895, 
pp. 304f.; SKX., 1896, pp. 103f.; Zznf pp. 56f., 186f.); it is 
rejected by Ramsay (Zx/.5 i. pp. 129f., 212f, vi. pp. 460f.), 
Chase (Critical Review, 1894, 303-305), Page (Class. Rev., 1897, 
217), Bebb (DB. iii. 164-165), Schmiedel (2.81. i. 50-56), Jiilicher 
(Zinl. § 32), and Jacquier (Z/VT. iii. 178-184), amongst others, 
mainly on the ground that (i.) the phenomena of the ‘ Western’ 
text are not confined to the Lucan writings; that (ii.) they are 
not homogeneous, but represent different strata; that (iii.) the 
‘original’ text of Acts and the ‘revised’ text of the third gospel 
cannot be reconstructed with certainty (compare the differences 
between Hilgenfeld’s text and that of Blass’ Acta Apostolorum 
secundum formam que videtur romanam) ; and that (iv.) the later 
origin of the ‘Western’ text appears in several places (e.g. 5%? 
addition of kings and tyrants). These and other reasons for 
maintaining the secondary character of the Western text are 
put especially by Harnack (SBBA., 1899, pp. 150f., 1900, 
pp. 2f.), Bousset (7'#., 1898, 410-414), Corssen (GG4., 1896, 
pp. 425f., 1901, pp. 1f., in reviewing Hilg.’s edition of Acts), 
B. Weiss (ZU. xvii. 1. pp. 52-107), Kenyon (Zextual Criticism 
of NT, pp. 341 f.), H. Coppieters (De Historia Textus Actorum 
Apostolorum dissertatio, 1902), and Schmiedel (2.81. 54-56), from 
the standpoint of textual criticism. D may have occasionally 
(cp. Zahn’s Hind. § 59) preserved the original reading,* but as a 
whole it cannot be ascribed to the author of Acts (see Harnack’s 


* According to A. Pott (Der abendlandische Text der Apgeschichte und 
thr Wir-quelle, 1900), because the editor had access to the We-sourre or 
Acta Pauli which underlies the canonical Acts. 


ACTS 411 


final reply in 72Ζ. (1907) 396-401, based on a fresh examina- 
tion of the D text in Ac 1-7). 


If the Western text of 1127-8 be the original draft (ἢν δὸ πολλὴ ἀγαλλί- 
acts. συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν ἔφη els ἐξ αὐτῶν ὀνόματι “AyaBos σημαίνων κτλ.; 
so Blass, Pfleiderer, Hilgenfeld, Zahn, F. Dibelius, J. Weiss, etc.), a strong 
light is thrown upon the personality of the writer. Here the we is not Paul’s 
companions, but the Christian community of Antioch. Consequently, if 
this isolated occurrence of ἡμεῖς is to be taken along with the others, as is 
most natural, the writer plainly conveys the impression that he himself was a 
Christian of Antioch, which is not improbable (cp. Harnack, 8.77. i. 21 f.) 
for other reasons (cp. the tradition in Eus, 4, &. iii. 4, and Jerome, zr. 
inlust. 7, ‘Lucas, medicus antiochensis,’ etc.). But the latter fact is not 
bound up with this reading, which may be due to a reviser who wished to 
emphasise the tradition in question (cp. EZ. xxii. 479). 


One or two cases of displacement, due to copyists, may be 
noted. Thus 438, which is an erratic block as it lies, originally 
came after 451; 5128 has been displaced (cp. Laurent, WZ Studien, 
138-139) from between 516 and 515; there is quite a case for 
Cramer’s (Exegetica et Critica, v.. 1896, 34-40) suggestion that 
1971-22 originally followed 18183; 148, unless it is an early gloss, 
lay before 142 (Wendt, cp. HZ. 671); and 268 has been dis- 
placed from its site between 2622 and 2628 (Nestle, Philologica 
Sacra, 54; Wendt; Moffatt, HZ. 676). Such phenomena, 
taken together with the fact that by the middle of the second 
century (1.5. within fifty years of its composition) divergent 
recensions of the text were current, might suggest that Luke did 
not publish the book himself, while the roughnesses of the extant 
text, which have set correctors early at work, prompt the con- 
jecture that the author did not manage to revise his δεύτερος 
λόγος for purposes of publication. 

§ 8. Date.—(Harnack, BVT. iv. go-116; J. A. Cross, ET. 
xii. 334-336, 423-425, xill. 43-46). As Acts is a sequel to the 
third gospel, and asthe latter was written after A.D. 70, the 
terminus a guo for the composition of the δεύτερος λόγος is 
determined without further ado. The time which elapsed 
between the two has been variously calculated (nine or ten years, 
Renan), but it is impossible to draw any safe inferences on this 
point from the more developed phase, ¢.g., of the resurrection- 
stories. If Luke used Josephus (see above, pp. 29-31), the 
terminus a guo of both his works could not be earlier than 
A.D. 94. On other grounds the older Tubingen school relegated 


312 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


Acts to the reign of Trajan or Hadrian (so Zeller-Overbeck: ii. 
267-284; Schwegler, Hausrath, followed by Krenkel, Rovers: 
INT. 205 f., Schmiedel in £Bz. 49-50, and Baljon); Pfleiderer, 
S. Davidson (1777: ii. 76-176), and Martineau (Seat of Authority, 
267) condescend on .D. 110-120 ; but others fix on the beginning 
of the second (so, e.g., Volkmar, Weizsacker, Holtzmann, Jacobsen, 
Renan: iv. ch. xix. ; Jiilicher, Wrede, Burkitt), or the close of the 
first century (so Wendt, J. Weiss, Peake, Lake). It is impossible 
to go earlier than ὦ A.D. 100, if it is allowed that Luke knew 
Josephus (Jewish Wars before a.p. 80; Antig., A.D. 93-94). In 
this event he must have been about seventy when he wrote Acts, 
which is by no means impossible or even improbable. When 
the dependence on Josephus is given up, Acts falls to be dated 
within the Domitianic period (so, e.g., Schleiermacher, Mangold, 
Keim, i. 63; Hilgenfeld, Reuss, McGiffert, Loning’s Gemetnde- 
verfassung, 62; J. Réville, Les origines de Vépiscopat, 43-44; 
Bacon, Ramsay’s SPZ. 386f.; Spitta, Knopf, Feine), perhaps 
as early as ὦ A.D. 80 (Ewald, Bleek, Hoennicke, Sanday’s /nuspira- 
tion®, 1894, 318-330; Gilbert) or the eighth decade of the 
century (Bartlet, Furneaux, Headlam, Zahn). We may recon- 
struct Luke’s literary activity roughly as follows: Between A.D. 
(50) 55 and 65 he wrote his memoranda of Paul’s travels ; later, 
between A.D. 80 and 60, the third gospel ; finally, ¢ a.D. 100, he 
worked up his memoranda into the book of Acts. Unless the 
Josephus-references, however, in the gospel are subsequent 
additions, the first of his works may also need to be placed 
towards the end of the first century. 


The notion that Acts was written immediately after the events recorded at 
its close, z.¢. prior to A.D. 70, which sprang up early (cp. Eus. H. Ε΄ ii. 22. 
6), through Jerome (zr. zz/ustr. 7: edidit uolumen egregium, quod titulo 
apostolicarum πράξεων preenotatur. Cuius historia usque ad biennium Rome 
commorantis Pauli peruenit, id est usque ad quartum Neronis annum. Ex 
quo intelligimus in eadem urbe librum esse compositum), lingers still, ¢.g., 
in Godet, Salmon, Alford (A.D. 63), Rendall, Koch, Barde (Comm. 508-583), 
Gloag (A.D. 62-64), Belser (A.D. 63), Bisping, Cornely, R. B. Rackham 
(JTS., 1899, 76-87), Dawson Walker (ΟἿ of Tongues, etc., A.D. 68-70), 
Corluy (A.D. 64), Blass, Edmundson (Ure. 32f.), and Jacquier; while 
Harnack (BN7, iv. 90 f., 114 f.) concludes that Acts must have been written 
before the fall of Jerusalem, even before Paul’s death (see above, p. 304). 
The most plausible argument in its favour is drawn from the last verse of the 
book Luke, it is held, wrote no more because he knew no more; when 
he wrote, Paul was still in his two years’ detention, or at least still alive. 
This becomes more arguable, if he is supposed to have planned a third 


ACTS 313 


volume ; but, when such a hypothesis is regarded as untenable, critics fall 
back on the position that he brought Acts up to date and issued it as it was. 
Tnis plea, that if he had known of Paul’s martyrdom or release, he must have 
mentioned it, does not flow from the structure of the book, however. Asa 
matter of fact, Paul was not released. Both Luke and his readers probably 
knew that the apostle had perished at the end of the two years’ residence in 
Rome ; the historian had as little interest in mentioning it as in suppressing 
it; he closes on the ringing chord of ἀκωλύτως, because he had now depicted 
the establishment of Gentile Christianity in Rome under the auspices of his 
hero. Paul’s martyrdom was as irrelevant to him as Peter’s. Acts is nota 
biography of Paul, but a sketch of the early church written from a special 
standpoint and for a special object; the omission of any reference to Paul’s 
subsequent fortunes only becomes perplexing to those who persist in reading 
into Acts an aim which the author never contemplated (cp. J. Weiss, Ure. 
293). From the standpoint of modern realism it would no doubt be more 
satisfactory to have the book rounded off by an account of Paul’s death ; but 
to expect such a finale is to misread the currents of the narrative. Even if 
the evidence for the post A.D. 70 date of the third gospel and for Luke’s use 
of Josephus could be set aside, there would not be sufficient internal evidence 
to establish a seventh-decade date for Acts. 

The other argument, that if Luke had written later he would have been 
sure to know and use Paul’s epistles, and in this way would have avoided 
some of the discrepancies between these and his own work, is equally insecure. 
Even if the epistles were widely circulated by the opening of the second 
century, Luke seems to have had no interest in Paul asa letter-writer (cp. 
Menzies, /nterpreter, 1914, 254f.). So far as Acts is concerned, the apostle 
might never have written an epistle at all: it was the churches who were to 
Luke Paul’s epistles (2 Co 32). Nor was Luke careful even in his own works 
(cp. Lk 24 and Ac 1) to avoid apparent (cp. Bacon, 2x.’ vii. 254-261) dis- 
crepancies. ‘‘ There are stranger things in the Acts thanthe appearance of con- 
tradicting St. Paul’s epistles. There are the contradictions (apparent or real) 
of the OT, of the writer’s own gospel, and of the book of Acts itself” (Cross). 


89. Zraces in early Christian literature.—(SR. 567-584; 
Zeller, i. 93-164; Leipoldt, GX. i. 197f.) As Luke’s two 
volumes were dedicated to Theophilus, evidently a man of posi- 
tion and means, it is more than probable that the latter would 
arrange for their circulation. This was the recognised practice 
of the time. The patronus ἐϊόγὲ often undertook to have copies of 
the book made by “érari# at his own expense, and thus its intro- 
duction to wider circles was facilitated (cp. e.g. Mart. iii. 2. 16, 
vil. 97.13; Cic. ad Att. xii. 40. 1). No traces of Acts are visible, 
however, until at least the second decade of the second century. 


Clem. Rom. 2! (ἥδιον διδόντες ἢ λαμβάνοντες) is merely an allusion * to an 
agraphon circulating through primitive Christianity, which chances to be cited 


* So Did. 17=Ac 15” 29. and the use, attributed by Hegesippus to James 
the Just, of the logion preserved in our canonical Lk 23* (Ac 7%), 


314 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 


in Ac 20%; Clem. 18!=Ac 13” reflects the use of a common source, and 
slight coincidences like Clem. 5*7=Ac 1%, Clem. 59?=Ac 26! are quite 
fortuitous.* In view of the rabbinical use of the phrase ¢o go ¢o his own place, 
the echo of Ac 1% in Ign. Magn. 51 becomes more apparent than real. Upon 
the other hand, Ac 2% does appear to have been in the mind of the writer of 
Polyk. 17 (ὃν ἤγειρεν ὁ Θεὸς λύσας Tas ὠδῖνας τοῦ ἅδου) ; it is not easy to 
suppose that the striking mistranslation of ‘ban was made independently. If 
so, lesser references or reminiscences may be seen in Polyk. 2! (judge of 
living and dead)=Ac 10 perhaps, and in Polyk. 63=Ac 7%, as well as 
(probably) in Polyk. 122=Ac 2° 821 2618, Similarly Ac 17%" is echoed in 
Diogn. 3, Tatian (Orat. ad Gr. 4), and Athenagoras (Zeg. 13); while Ac 7” 
seems reproduced, like Lk 15, in the epistle of the Vienne and Lyons churches 
—which throws back the composition of the book into the first half or even 
the first quarter of the second century. Irenzeus and the Muratorian Canon 
attest its repute as scripture in the Western church, like Tertullian in the 
church of Africa, and Clement in Alexandria. Its history in the Alexandrian 
church, together with the fact that its text could be so freely altered as in the 
D revision, shows that in some quarters, however, Acts was not considered 
γραφή by the middle of the second century. What helped eventually to 
popularise itt and to win canonical prestige was its ecclesiastical emphasis 
on the apostles and Paul as leaders of the catholic church—a trait which 
became particularly grateful in the controversy with Marcion. ‘‘The book 
was canonised first of all as a supplement to the catholic epistles,—to make 
up for the fact that many of the apostles had left no writings behind them,— 
and, in the second place, as a link between the Pauline and the catholic 
epistles, by way of documentary proof that Paul and the twelve were at one” 
(Leipoldt, GX. i. 205). Hence probably the third and fourth words in the 
description of the Muratorian Canon: ‘‘ Acta autem omnium apostolorum 
sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optimo Theophilo comprehendit, que sub 
presentia eius singula gerebantur, sicut et semota passione Petri euidenter 
declarat, sed et profectione Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.” This 
ambiguous reference is connected by Dr. M. R. James (cp. 7.5. V. ii., 1897, 
pp. 10f.) with the Leucian Actus Petri Vercellenses, which begin with the 
profectio Pault ab urbe in Spaniam, and close with the fassto Petri—a coin- 
cidence which seems to imply that these Acts were known to the compiler of 
the Murat. Canon, who confused Luke with Leucius or took the Leucian 
Acts (where the first person is also used anonymously, cp. 7715. xvi. 505) 
to be written, as Leucius may have intended his readers to suppose, by Luke. 


* As are Herm. Sim. 9%=Ac 51 and Vas. 42=Ac 412; Ign. Smyrn. 33= 
Ac τοῦ, and Barn. 77=Ac 10%, with perhaps Just. Dia/. 36, 76=Ac 267-38, 

+ The apocryphal Acta draw upon it and embellish its hints by fantastic 
embroideries of their own (cp. HWA. i. 347f.). In his opening homily, 
Chrysostom observes that (πολλοῖς τοῦτο τὸ βιβλίον οὔτ᾽ ὅτι ἐστι γνώριμόν ἐστιν 
οὔτε ὁ γράψας αὐτὸ καὶ συνθείς) many Christians were ignorant alike of its 
existence and of its authorship: some said Clement of Rome, others Barnabas, 
others again Luke. The authenticity of the homily has been questioned, but, 
even so, it throws light on the indifference towards Acts which was felt in 
some quarters of the early church during the fourth or fifth century. 


CHAPTERVIIL 


HOMILIES AND PASTORAIS. 


It is with a sense of baffled curiosity, which almost deepens 
into despair at some points, that one leaves the literary 
criticism of the following fragments of the primitive Christian 
literature which have been gathered into the NT. In Greek 
and Roman literature there are also several writings which 
present unsolved, if not insoluble, problems of authorship and 
date, but, between the death of Paul and the journey of 
Ignatius to Rome, a mist lies over the early church, which is 
hardly dissipated by the recognition of Luke as the author of 
the third gospel and Acts, or of a John in Asia Minor towards 
the close of the first century, with whom some of the ‘Johannine’ 
writings may be connected. The former approximates more 
closely than any other early Christian writer to the literary 
figures of the contemporary ancient world ; the latter remains 
- a more or less shadowy figure, round whom later traditions 
throw conflicting rays of light. The result is that in these 
pastorals and homilies we are left face to face with a number 
of writings which are obviously sub-Pauline, which must have 
been composed during the last thirty years of the first century 
and the opening decades of the second, which can be approxi- 
mately grouped and in some cases dated, but which elude any 
attempt to fix them down toa definite author. No contemporary 
tradition enables us to place them. Even the traditions of the 
next century, such as they are, yield little or no data upon the 
problems raised by literary criticism ; it is seldom certain whether 
such traditions are much more than imaginative deductions 
from the writings themselves. 

This is one of the perplexing differences between the 
Christian literature of the first and that of the second century. 
The latter reveals a series of striking personalities, while the NT 
literature, which is practically synonymous with the literature of 

315 


316 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


the church during the first century, has only one writer whose 
personality is well marked, 2.6. the apostle Paul. Luke, the 
historian, is known to us mainly from his writings, and these, 
from their very nature, are objective rather than subjective. 
The John of Asia Minor whom we can detect behind the 
Johannine literature, must have been a commanding figure, 
but we cannot feel him breathe and move, as we can feel Paul. 
On the other hand, the second century and its literature reveal 
strong and varied personalities, from Ignatius to Irenzeus, from 
Polykarp to Tertullian, from Marcion and even Papias and 
Hegesippus to Justin, Tatian, and Clement of Alexandria. One 
result of this contrast is that, while these writers and others 
reflect the existence of the earlier NT literature, it is more 
difficult to fix down the latter. When the NT canon begins 
to emerge, in the second and third centuries, we find it composed 
of writings which may, on independent grounds, in a large 
majority of cases, be assigned to A.D. 7o-120; but it is a task 
beyond the resources of criticism—at least beyond such resources 
as are at present available—to locate a number of these writings 
with any sort of precision. They come to us out of that misty 
half-century; they are found to be in use throughout the 
later church in certain quarters ; echoes of them in later writers 
help to prove their period within certain limits, and internal 
evidence determines their relative order now and then. But 
beyond this we can seldom go with very much security. 
The questions of their authorship, object, and structure may 
be discussed with the aid of hypotheses, but these hypotheses 
are almost wholly derived from internal evidence, and this 
evidence in its turn is vitiated by our comparative ignorance 
of the literary conditions in which these compositions originated. 


One reason for this was that such problems were irrelevant to the 
interests of the later church. 2h7l de tttults interest, said Tertullian (see 
below, p. 390) ; and this abjuring of interest in questions which pertain to 
literary criticism fairly represents the general temper of the age immediately 
following the origin of the NT documents. Their religious validity was 
the only thing that mattered. Since that seemed to involve a claim for 
apostolic authorship or authority, evidence was led, in the shape of tradition 
usually, on behalf of the claim ; otherwise the morphology of the documents 
usually excited no interest in the devout or the ecclesiastical mind. 

This feeling went back further. These documents were not composed 
as pieces of literature. Luke is the only writer who reminds us, in style 
and treatment, of an ancient Greek or Roman author; the dedication of 


THEIR LITERARY FORM 317 


his works to an individual, their prefaces, and their general ethos, offer a 
certain parallel to contemporary pagan literature. Otherwise, the NT 
literature, and especially that of the pastorals and homilies, may be described 
as communal in origin; it approximates to the Hebrew rather than to the 
Greek or Roman literature. The pastorals and homilies, like the gospels, 
were not written with any literary object ; their authors voice various sides 
of a movement, even when their idiosyncrasies are most evident; and, on 
the whole, in passing from Paul’s correspondence through the contemporary 
gospels to this group of pastorals and homilies, we touch more and more 
the catholic spirit of the early church, rather than any great personality. 
Tradition in the case of 1 Peter and of 2-3 John brings figures within reach 
which may be more or less securely connected with these homilies, but 
otherwise most of the later traditions upon their origin are derivative and 
secondary. The writings are all post-Pauline. In several, ¢.2g., Hebrews, 
1 Peter, and James, vibrations of the Pauline theology are audible ; Ephesians, 
Timotheus, and Titus are associated explicitly with the apostle’s name, 
and this drew them, together with Hebrews (usually), into the Pauline 
canon. But it is not possible to classify them chronologically, or even 
according to types of thought, and while they are grouped in the following 
pages it is principally for the sake of convenience (cp. above, p. 20). 


None of these epistolary writings contains any narrative. 
The epistolary form of literature was devoted mainly to the 
interests of edification. Several writings have been preserved 
which, while epistolary in form, are practically narratives, and 
narratives of martyrdom, of which the most significant are the so- 
called ‘ Martyrdom of the holy Polykarp,’ an epistle written by the 
church of Smyrna to that of Philomelium, and the epistle of the 
church at Vienne and Lyons, about twenty years later, describing 
the persecution which had broken out in Gaul under Antoninus 
Verus. These, however, are both later. 2 Peter may not be 
earlier than the Smyrniote epistle, but with this partial exception 
the homilies and pastorals which have been grouped in the NT 
canon are not only prior to this epistolary narrative, but closer 
to exposition and exhortation. Even in form* they vary. 
Hebrews has no address, and 1 John has no definite address ; 
while neither James nor 1 John has any epistolary conclusion. 
The more important of them show how Paul had popularised 
the epistolary form in primitive Christianity, but it is as homilies 
rather than as epistles that they are to be ranked (pp. 48-50). 


The so-called ‘catholic’? or ‘canonical’ (cp. ZVW., 1913, 266f.) 
epistles are best connected with the anonymous apostles and prophets who 


* Cp. Deissmann, A7b/e Studies, pp. 50f.; Heinrici, Der Litter. 
Character d. neutest. Schriften, 73 £.; Bacon, Making of NT, 107 f. 


318 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


belonged to Christendom as a whole, not to any particular community (cp. 
Harnack, 2746. i. 341 f.). But Harnack’s further hypothesis (cp. 7 Ὁ). ii. 2. 
pp. 106f., ACZ. ii. 1. 455 f.), that 1 Peter, Judas, and James were originally 
the work of such unknown teachers and prophets, and that the later tendency 
of the church to run back its doctrine and institutions to apostles led to the 
insertion of apostolic names in these homilies, does not work out well in detail. 

Editions by the French scholar Jacques Le Feévre d’Etaples (Basle, 1527), 
J. Ferus the Franciscan (Paris, 1536 f.), N. Serarius (Mayence, 1612), S. J. 
Justinianus (Lyons, 1621), Fromond (Paris, 1670), G. Schlegel (1783), J. B. 
Carpzov (1790), J. C. W. Augusti (1801), J. W. Grashof (1830), K. R. 
Jachmann (1838), de Wette (1847), Briickner (— de Wette*, 1865), H. 
Ewald (1870), A. Bisping (1871), Hofmann (1875-6), E. Reuss (1878), 
J. Μ. S. Baljon (1903), B. Weiss (vol. iii. of his ΜΖ. Handausgate), T. 
Calmes (Paris, 1905), F. Weidner (Azmotations, New York, 1906), van 
Steenkiste (222. Cath. Explicate*, 1907), and Windisch (HBN7, 1911). 
Special studies by G. Ὁ. Storr, de catholicarum epistolarum occastone et consilio 
(Tubingen, 1789), C. F. Staudlin, de fontibus epistolarum catholicarum 
(Gottingen, 1790), P. J. Gloag (/irod. to Cath, Epp., Edin. 1877), 5. Ὁ. F. 
Salmond (DB. i. 359-362), and W. Bauer (Dze Katholischen Briefe des NT, 
Tiibingen, 1910); they are also translated and annotated by F. W. Farrar 
in his Early Days of Christianity. On their canonical place, see Leipoldt 
(GK, i. 232f.), and Lietzmann’s Wie wurden die Bucher des NT, heilige 


Schrift? (1907) pp. 99-110. 


(A) THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER. 


LITERATURE.—(a) Editions'—Erasmus (1516); Luther (1523); H. 
Bullinger (1534); Bibliander (1536); Calvin (1551); Hemming (1555); 
F. Feuardent (Paris, 1600); N. Byfield (London, 1637); Gerhard (Jena, 
1641) ; John Rogers (London, 1650) ; Grotius (Axmotat. 1650); A. Nisbet 
(London, 1658); David Dickson (1659); Benson, Paraphrase and Notes 
(1756); J. 8. Semler’s Paraphrasts (Halle, 1781); Morus (Leipzig, 1794); 
Roos, Brief explanation of the Two Epp. of P. (1798) ; Pott (1810); 
C. G. Hensler (Sulzbach, 1813) ; Hottinger (Leipzig, 1815) ; Eisenschmidt 
(1824) ; W. Steiger (Berlin, 1832, Eng. tr. 1836); J. D. Schlichthorst (1836) ; 
Windischmann (Vindicie Petrine, 1836)* ; de Wette (1847); J. E. Riddle 
(1849) ; J. F. Demarest (New York, 1851); A. Wiesinger, Briefes d. Jakobus, 
Petrus, und Judas (Konigsberg, 1854); Olshausen (1856); T. Schott 
(Erlangen, 1861) ; B. Briickner * (1865 8) ; J. Brown’ (Edin. 1868); Alford4 
(1871) ; Wordsworth (1872); Hundhausen (Mainz, 1873, 1878); Hofmann, 
der Erste Brief Petri (Nordlingen, 1875) ; Reuss (1878); E. H. Plumptre 
(Camb. Bible, 1879); F. C. Cook (Speaker’s Comm. 1881); Huther (— 
Meyer, Eng. tr. 1881); C. A. Witz (Vienna, 1881); Keil, Briefe a. Petrus 
und Judas (Leipzig, 1883); 5. D. F. Salmond (Schaff’s Comm. 1883) *; A. J. 
Mason (Ellicott’s Comm. 1883); J. M. Usteri* (Ziirich, 1887) ; R. Johnstone 
(Edin. 1888); B. C. Caffin (Pulpit Comm. 1889); Fronmiiller (Lange’s 


1In addition to the patristic notes of Didymus (ed. F. Zoepfl, 1914), 
Oecumenius, and Theophylact. 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 319 


Bibcl-Werk 4, 1890, Eng. tr. 1872); J. R. Lumby (Zxfositor’s Bible, 1893) ; 
Goebel (1893); J. T. Beck, Erkldrung d. Briefe Petri (1895); K. Burger? 
(1895) ; H. Couard (1895); E. Kiihl (— Meyer ®, 1897); F. J. A. Hort * 
(posthumous and incomplete [11-217], 1898); H. von Soden* (HC. 1896) ; 
Monnier (1900)*; J. H. B. Masterman (1900); C. Bigg? (JCC. 1902)*; 
Bugge, Afostlerne Peters og Judas’s Breve (1902); Gunkel (SN7.? 1907) ; 
Hart (EG7. 1910); Windisch (HABNT. 1911), van Kasteren (Utrecht, 1911), 
R. Knopf (— Meyer’, 1912) ; G. Wohlenberg (ZX. 1915). 

(4) Studies—Cludius, Uransichten des Christenthums (Altona, 1808), 
296-311; Augusti, Vova hypothesis, que prime Petri epistole αὐθεντίαν im- 
pugnat, sub examen voc. (Jena, 1808); J. D. Schulze, Der schriftstellerische 
Charakter τ. Werth des Petrus, Judas, τ. Jakobus (Leipzig, 1811); Seyler 
(SK., 1832, 44f.); Mayerhoff, Zznlezt. in die Petrin. Schriften (Hamburg, 
1835)* ; Lecoultre’s 7#éses (Geneva, 1839); A. L. Pélmann, 7heologia Petrina 
(Groningen, 1850); J. C. Zaalberg’s Dzsguzsitio (1851); B. Weiss, Petrin. 
Lehrbegriff (1855), and in SX, (1865, pp. 619-657, 1873, pp. 539f.); Baur 
(Theol. Jahrb., 1856, 193-240, in reply to Weiss; also Church History, Eng. 
tr. i. pp. 150f.); Schmid, Bzdiical Theology of the NT (ii. pp. 374f.); 
Sabatier (ESR. x. 619f.); Davaine, Etude dogmatique sur 1 P. (1867); 
Grimm (SX., 1872, pp. 657-694); Holtzmann (BZ. iv. 494-502); C. H. 
van Rhijn, de jougste bezwaren tegen de echtherd vaan αἴ, eersten brief van 
Petrus getoest (1875); Gloag, Introd. to Catholic Epistles (Edin. 1887), pp. 
109-203; E. Scharfe, die petrinische Stromung in d. NT Literatur (1893)* ; 
R. H. Drijber (Ge/oof en Vrijheid, 1895, 28-60); Ramsay, CRE. (ch. xiii.) 
and Ex.‘ viii. 282-296 ; Seeberg, der Zod Christi (1895), 288 f. ; McGiffert. 
AA. pp. 482f., 5931. ; Dalmer, ‘Zu 1 P 118-19’ (BF7,, 1898, 6) ; Harmon, 
‘ Peter—The man and the epistle’ (7BZ., 1898, 31-39); Ε΄. H. Chase (2.2. 
iii. 779-796) * ; van Manen, Handletding voor de ondchristelijke Letterkunde 
(1900), pp. 64-67; Pfleiderer, Urc. iv. 243f.; Sieffert (PRE. xv. 186- 
212)*; Moffatt, HVZ. pp. 242-257; Kogel, ‘die Gedankeneinheit des 
ersten Briefes Petri’ (B¥7., 1902, 5-6); L. Goutard, ‘ Essai critique et 
historique sur la prem. épitre de S. Pierre’ (Lyons, 1905); Orello Cone 
(Z8&i. iii. 3677-3685) ; B. Weiss, ‘ Der erste Petrusbrief u. die neuere Kritik ’ 
(1906); P. Schmidt, ‘Zwei Fragen zum ersten Petrusbrief? (ZW7., 1907, 
28-52); R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles (1909), 208-211; J. C. Granbery, 
‘Christological Peculiarities in 1 Pt.’ (A/7., 1910, 62-81); K. Lake (Ε 8.1} 
xxi. 295 f.); 5. J. Case (DAC. ii. 201 f.); Edmundson (Ure. 119 f.). 

§ 1. Characteristics of the pastoral.—After a brief address} 
(11:2), Peter thanks God for the living hope of salvation possessed 
by his readers—a salvation which their present trials only serve 
to guarantee to them (1%), as the long-promised messianic 
heritage (11°12), This hopeful? prospect is a source of joy. 
It involves, however, a reverent and godly conduct in the present 

1Cp. W. Alexander (Zx#.8 iv. 1-13). 

2 The temper inculcated by Peter, in view of suffering, is not a grey, 
close-lipped stoicism, but a glow of exultation such as Jesus (Mt 511-12) and 


Paul (Ro 555) had already counselled. Christians can only be patient under 
their trials by being more than patient, 


320 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


life (11821), particularly brotherly love (17) as the vital expres- 
sion towards one another of the mercy which all, as the true and 
new Israel, had received in Christ from God.* The appeal then, 
as in He 13}, widens (2117) into a variety of social duties 
incumbent on Christians as citizens (21%), subjects (2135), slaves ¢ 
(218f), wives (31°), and husbands (37), and the closing general 
exhortation (381) to mutual duties passes back into the cardinal 
question of a Christian’s right behaviour under trial and unjust 
punishment. Christ’s example of patience and innocence, and 
the imminence of the final deluge (3185), are adduced as the 
main motives for Christians keeping themselves free from pagan 
vice and (485) from lovelessness within the church.{ A final 
paragraph (41519), warning them against repining, gathers up 
these admonitions, after which Peter (5!) appeals§ to the 
elders for considerate and faithful supervision of the churches, 
and to the younger members (55) for a-humility towards men 
and God which is the normal Christian safeguard. The blessing 
(51011), as|| in He 132%, is followed by some brief personal 
notices, with which the epistle closes. Its keynote is steady 


* Cp. the striking parallel, 1 P 25: ΞΖ ΜᾺ 12!11; also the similarity of 
argument in 1 P 47=Mk 1379-83, 

+ The association of advice to these οἰκέται with an exposition of Christ’s 
death is partly due to the fact that crucifixion was a punishment for slaves in 
the Roman world. The large place given to the duties of slaves and wives, 
as contrasted with the lack of any regulations for masters and the slight counsel 
for husbands, is remarkable, 38 is one of the rare sumptuary directions in 
primitive Christian literature. 

+ Two points may be noted to show how the strange legendary reference 
of 3% would possess a certain aptness as a local allusion. (a) Marcion, the 
Pontic Christian, is known at a later stage to have caught up a similar idea 
(Zren. 1. 27. 3); and (4) Apamea was one of the places where the Noah- 
legend, like the Enoch-legend, had been localised (cp. Babelon in RHR., 
1891, pp. 174-183), though Parthia and Phrygia competed for the honour of 
having been the ark’s resting-place (see Schitrer, G/V. iii, 18-20). 

§ Cp. W. Alexander (2x. iv. 184-193). 

|| Both 1 P. and Heb. are brief exhortations (542=He 13”) to exiles of 
heaven (1) 2""=He 1118, Mk 13”), written in view of penultimate persecution 
(47: 17-19= He 10%). See, further, 2=He 12%, 29=He 5135, 2°=He 35, 39= 
He 12", 371 (ἀντίτυπον) -- He 9%, with the use of φανεροῦσθαι (1%=He 938) 
and the emphasis on ἅπαξ (3!®= He 7°7 g? 361.) and the common exaltation of 
hope. But Heb. implies a longer period of Christian experience in its audience 
thani P. In view of Col 4157 and 2 Co 1? it cannot be argued that (von 
Soden) the circulation of an encyclical like this implied that the churches had 
been organised for some time, 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 321 


encouragement (51!=Lk 22°") to endurance in conduct and 
innocence in character. 

The dominant note of the epistle is hope (118 etc., cp. Seyler, 
SK., 1832, pp. 44f.; Weiss, ΜΖ ΤΑ. ii. 243 f.), but it would be 
unsafe to argue freely from the tone of a practical letter, written 
under special circumstances, to the character of the writer, any 
more than to his theological temper, as if the letter represented a 
divergence from orthodox Paulinism (Holtzmann, 7 Τά. ii. 
308-311), or as if the virtue of hope was specially prominent in 
his personality. Probably the author wrote about hope, because 
hope was what his readers needed. The line of argument and 
application pursued must have been congenial to him, for it is 
worked out with sagacity and insight; but its employment at 
this particular crisis does not permit us to infer that it was 
normal to the writer, except in the general sense in which the 
messianic outlook of the early Christians tended to develop it. 
The emphasis put upon it here is due to the emergency of the 
moment rather than to any idiosyncrasy or dogmatic preposses- 
sion on the part of the author (so, rightly, Reuss, pp. 156-157, 
and Wrede, Ueber Aufgadbe d. sogen. NT Theologte, 18-19). Many 
other Christians might have written similarly, and as a matter of 
fact hope is also prominent in Titus (cp. 37 etc.), an epistle with 
which 1 P. has some traits in common (e.g. λυτροῦσθαι 118 = Tit 
24, 21=Tit 35, 29=Tit 213, 2=Tit 21%, 23=Tit 3!; regenera- 
tion in baptism, 1° 421} -- Tit 35 etc.). 

At the same time, a writing like this reveals a man’s 
personality in several aspects, and one of these aspects is a 
warm,* kindly spirit which is allied to a certain grace of style. 
The plastic language and love of metaphor ¢ (cp. the frequent 
use of ὡς, 114-19 226.16 410. 11.15.16 538) shows an easy and natural 
temperament, with a vivid outlook upon the concrete surround- 
ings of human life. The sequence of ideas is not marked by 
any rhetorical devices, though there is a deftness in the linking 
of clause to clause (e.g. 16 18 210), and although a clause like ὃ 
ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων 


κόσμος has been pronounced ‘quite Thucydidean’ (Bigg). On 


* ‘Das Eigenthumliche des Briefes ist eine durchgehende Warme” 
(Mayerhoff, p. 102). 

t Cp. Scharfe (SX., 1889, pp. 633-670), Chase (pp. 781-782), and Bigg 
(pp. 2-5). The style is ‘‘more varied, more nearly classical, but less 
eloquent and of less literary power” (Simcox) than that of James. 

21 


322 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


the other hand, the writer never uses ἄν, and he rarely employs 
connecting particles. The correlation of the paragraphs denotes 
the preacher, with his eye on an audience, rather than the 
composer of a literary epistle. He is fond, it should be noted, 


of developing a thought first negatively, then positively (not 
. « « but, 114-16. 18-19. 280-23b 360-6b, 21a-21b 9.20, 2-8), and of present- 


ing an idea by means of sharp contrasts (1% 8 11-15-16 24. 7. 10. 16. 
23-25 41. 8, 9. 11-12, 17-18 42.6. 14-15.17-18 1.8), five times with the idio- 
matic μέν. . . δέ, whose use in τ P. of all the NT writings ‘‘is 
freest and contributes most to the sense” (Simcox, Language 
of NT, p. 167). He likes compounds of συν-, and verbs com- 
pounded of ἀνα- (18: 15. 15. 17. 23 25.24 44.14) fis favourite formula 
for introducing OT quotations is διότι (174), with γέγραπται (11°) 
or περιέχει ἐν TH γραφῇ (2°), but just as often an OT phrase is 
woven into the texture of the epistle without any comment, or 
several are twisted together. 


The beautiful spirit of the pastoral shines through any translation of the 
Greek text. ‘‘Affectionate, loving, lowly, humble,” are Izaak Walton’s 
quaternion of adjectives for the epistles of James, John, and Peter, but it is 
1 P. which deserves them pre-eminently. To this writer Christians in the 
present age seem exiles (1! 2", cp. also 117), " or pilgrims (contrast Eph 2”), 
whose inheritance is in heaven (15), but who possess here a sure footing in the 
true grace of God (58 a reminiscence of Col 1?). This grace, which is the 
core and heart of the epistle, is described in historical retrospect as the 
subject | of OT prophecy (11°), and in prospect as the final boon to be fully 
bestowed at the second coming of Jesus Christ (113). By a remarkable turn 
(cf. Phil 17%), the suffering of innocent Christians is described as a χάρις in 
God’s sight (24%). Zhe grace of life is Peter’s equivalent for Christianity 
(37); God is to him the god of all grace (519), and Christians are to be 
stewards of God’s ποικίλη χάρις (419), or bounty bestowed on them for various 
ends of service. The epistle is a blend of παράκλησις and ἐπιμαρτυρία (512), 
the latter testifying ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ, els ἣν στῆτε (cp. 4}4). 
Here Peter uses χάρις where Paul had used εὐαγγέλιον (1 Co 15}}, and the 
unsettling tendencies are due to suffering, not to wrong views (as at Corinth). 


* This disposes of one of Harnack’s arguments (see p. 342). He pleads 
that the address does not lie on the same plane as the rest of the epistle, 
whereas this conception of Christians as exiled colonists of heaven is intim- 
ately bound up with the conception of their sufferings. But it is simpler to 
suppose that the address came from the same source as the bulk of the letter, 
than to conjecture that a later scribe studied the letter and wrote the address 
so as to be in line with what followed. Cp. also the use of ὑπακοή (17 1 33). 

+ This is in keeping with its associations in Paul and in Acts (cp. J. A. 
Robinson, Zfhes. pp. 221f.), where χάρις is generally tinged with colours 
drawn from the admission of the Gentiles into the prerogatives and privileges 
of Israel. 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 323 


§ 2. The situation.—It is this hostile pressure, with the 
perplexities and pains which ensue, that differentiates 1 P. 
from the preceding correspondence of Paul. The relations 
between Christians and the authorities have entered on a phase 
of strain, which marks a new epoch in the story of the primitive 
church, and the date, as well as inferentially the authorship, of 
the epistle may be said to depend largely upon the view adopted 
of the disturbance under which the readers were suffering. 
They are not to be taken aback at the durning trial (4132) which 
has befallen them; for (i.) it is not purposeless, but a furnace 
where the genuine elements of their Christian character are being 
tested and tempered (1%) ; (ii.) it is not abnormal, but the 
natural order of experience exemplified as well as ordained by 
Jesus himself (41%); (iii.) it is not permanent, but merely the 
short, sharp prelude to eternal glory; and (iv.) it is not un- 
common (5°), but the contemporary lot of their fellow-Christians 
throughout the world. The detailed allusions to this untoward 
environment are often held to indicate an organised persecution, 
when Christians were hunted out and hunted down as Christians ; 
and it is argued strongly that this extension of persecution from 
the capital to the provinces, together with the fact of suffering 
for the Name, must point to the reign of Trajan, or at least to 
that of Domitian. It would be no valid objection to the latter 
date, that a contemporary Asiatic writing, the apocalypse of John, . 
reflects quite a different attitude towards the State; for John 
represents a special phase of Asiatic Christianity in hot protest 
against the local Imperial cultus (see below, ch. iv.), whereas 
Clem. Rom., like 1 Peter, would voice the more patriotic temper 
consonant with the Christianity of the capital. But the internal 
evidence does not appear to carry us beyond the seventh decade 
of the first century, as reflected, ¢.g., in a contemporary passage 
like Mk 13°. Here, as there, Christians are liable to official 
interference as well as to social annoyance on the score of their 
religion; they are dragged before ἡγεμόνες and _ royalty 
(cp. 1 P 218), ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ (-- ὡς Χριστιανός, 41°), and have to 
answer for themselves. Mk. does not specify the charges; he 
merely makes Jesus describe the trials as incurred (13}%) διὰ τὸ 
ὄνομα μου. ‘This tallies fairly with the evidence of 1 P. and the 
Roman historians alike in pointing to a period as early as the 
seventh decade when, not only at Rome but throughout the 
provinces, the popular belief that Christianity was bound up 


324 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


with such Μαρία as Thyestean δεῖπνα and Οἰδοπόδειοι μίξεις 
(Arnold, of. cit. below, pp. 22f., HFG. iv. 398 f.), besides anti- 
imperial tendencies, exposed any adherent of that religion, against 
whom information was laid, to arrest and even execution. 


When Nero cleverly shifted the suspicion of arson from himself to ‘‘ quos 
per flagitia inuisos uulgus Chrestianos appellabat,” the pestilential super- 
stition of Christianity, Tacitus (Amma/. xv. 44) continues, had spread 
already in Rome, ‘‘quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt 
celebranturque.” Originally the Romans may have scarcely taken the 
trouble to distinguish between Christianity and its parent-stock Judaism, but 
before the seventh decade* it must have been the interest of the Jews, 
especially at Rome, where they enjoyed the favour of Poppzea, to differentiate 
themselves from the Nazarenes ; and it was inevitable that the occurrence of 
legal proceedings such as happened in Paul’s career (e.g. Ac 1815) should 
make the distinction fairly plain to most of the authorities. It was in all 
likelihood the Jews who, out of ζῆλος or spiteful malice (cp. Clem. Rom. 6), 
instigated Nero’s émeu/e, or at least suggested his victims and scapegoats (cp. 
Harnack in 7U., 1905, 2, pp. I-9). In any case this outburst presupposes 
that the general public had become accustomed, by the seventh decade of the 
first century, to single out Christians from Jews, even when levelling against the 
former some of the charges (e.g. hatred of the human race) which were current 
against the latter. The accounts of Tacitus and Suetonius (Ver. 16) further 
show that while Nero’s attack was short if sharp, it must have rendered the 
general situation more perilous for Christians throughout the empire. The 
former writes : ‘in the first place some were denounced (or put on trial) and 
made to confess.t| Thereupon, thanks to their information, a vast multitude 
was associated with them (reading comjuncté for the MS convict?) on 
the charge not so much of arson as of enmity to the human race.’ In line 
with this, ‘‘ Suetonius’ sober statement shows that Nero’s government did not 
confine itself in its measures of repression against the Christians to those 
accused of arson. We may safely assume that they began under Nero partly 
in defence of the public gods, partly against the excesses said (and probably 
not in all cases unjustly) to reign among them” (Mommsen, £x/.' viii. 6). 
This second stage of imperial procedure against Christians as hostile to the 


* It is therefore arbitrary, as I have elsewhere shown (DCG. i. 316-318, 
HJ. vi. 704-707), to find a hysteron proteron either in Luke’s or in the 
classical historians’ use of the name ‘Christian.? So F. C. Arnold, de 
Neronische Christenverfolgung (1888), pp. 52f., and E. Klette, die Christen- 
hatastrophe unter Nero (1907), pp. 16f., 40f, Klette’s monograph summarises 
the wide results of recent research upon the problem, especially the novel 
views of Profumo and Pascal. 

t To confess what? probably not the fact that they were Christians, but 
their guilt as incendiaries (so Schiller, F. C. Arnold, Duruy, Henderson, 
Klette), in spite of the innocence of Christians on this count. Either they 
turned traitors and for sectarian ends gave incriminating testimony falsely, 
or they were tortured into bearing false witness, or else they were fanatical 
enthusiasts, 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 325 


human race, inaugurated under Nero,* prevailed during the Flavian dynasty, 
and invested the mere name of Christian with perilous and compromising 
associations. No adequate evidence of any change under Vespasian has been 
adduced. Christians, as Mommsen put it, were persecuted just as robbers 
were exterminated; it was a standing order, one of the permanent police 
measures, so Suetonius implies.t| When the correspondence of Trajan and 
Pliny unveils the proceedings of the latter as governor of Bithynia, he is 
found to be acting instinctively on the principle that he has a perfect right to 
execute those who persist in calling themselves Christians. No question of 
crime is raised. The profession of this religzo z//éctta is assumed to be a 
capital offence. Trajan’s answer to his lieutenant neither disputes nor 
authorises this mode of action; the emperor simply sanctions it as an 
admitted feature of the State policy towards such dissenters. 


In the light of these historical data, the language of 1 P. 
becomes more intelligible. Not only does it contain no definite 
or necessary allusion to the second-century persecution for the 
Name, but the very terms employed are satisfactorily explained 
by the position of Christians under the Empire during the third - 
quarter of the first century, especially subsequent to A.D. 64. 
Thus, while κακοποιός has its general meaning of ‘ wrong-doer’ 
in 2!%14 its position between murderer and thief and 
ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος in 415, shows that here it is specially (cp. 
malus in Hor. Sat. 1. i. 77, ili. 59, etc.) equivalent to maleficus 
in the contemporary usage of Suetonius, #.e. wizard or magician, 
—miagic, in the sense of possessing supernatural powers and of 
wielding undue influence over others,§ being a common charge 
against Christians, and one which, like arson, rendered the people 
liable to the penalties of the Lex Cornelia de sicarits (cp. 
Arnold, of. cit. pp. 64 f.). Hence ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος would mean 
not so much seditious or inconsistent as either a busybody—one 

*Cp. Sanday (Zx/.4 vii. 407f.); E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the 
Roman Empire (1894), pp. 70f., 80f., 125 f. ; and Klette, of. czt. 54f. ‘‘ Die 
Moglichkeit, dass die Verhaltnisse, welche der Brief voraussetzt, schon unter 
Vespasian, ja selbst unter Nero, begonnen haben und je nach Einsicht und 
Temperament christlicherseits mit mehr oder weniger Sorge und Befiirchtung 
beurtheilt worden sind, lasst sich nicht abweisen ” (Harnack, ACL. ii. I. 454). 

t ‘‘ Only,” as Mommsen adds (Provinces, ii. p. 199 n.), ““ such regula- 
tions were put into practice at times more gently or even negligently, at 
other times more strictly, and were doubtless on occasion specially enforced 
from high quarters.” 

~The further questions arising out of this important correspondence, 
including that of Trajan’s rescript, do not bear on the NT literature. Cp. 
Newmnann’s der rim. Staat τι. die allgemeine Kirche, i. [1890] pp. 9f., and 
Knopf (ΜΖ. 96f.). 

§ For Christians who were actually mathematect, cp. Tert. de /dol, ix, 


326 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


who, like the Cynics, interfered (cp. Zeller in SBBA., 1893, 
pp. 129f.) rudely and indiscreetly with ordinary practices and 
the social order, by a propaganda of divisive principles—or 
actually a ‘delator,’* like some of the Christians who informed 
against their fellows under Nero.+ This kind of perse- 
cution would be spasmodic and sporadic (5%). Evidently it 
had but recently broken upon these Asiatic Christians; and 
while there was always a danger of the capital punishment 
being inflicted, it is clear that suffering of a less arduous 
character (calumny, annoyance, social ostracism, etc.) is con- 
templated in the main (cp. 41:2 τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶσαι 
χρόνον, the expression μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, 418, and οἱ πάσχοντες πιστῷ 
κτίστῃ παρατιθέσθωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ἐν ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ). Further- 
more, while the epistle has judicial proceedings in view now and 
again, it does not exclude the hardships due to exasperated 
popular feeling; indeed, the two cannot be kept apart, as the 
action of governors was usually stimulated by private informa- 
tion laid by angry citizens, and the language of the epistle 
cannot fairly be held to imply that the authorities were taking 
the initiative regularly against Christians simply and solely 
because the latter confessed the name and faith of Christ. 
“Tennemi, ce n’est pas encore le pouvoir, ce sont les gens 
ignorants, débauchés, c’est la foule aveugle, qui n’admet pas un 
culte et une morale par lesquels elle se sent condamnée” 
(Monnier, p. 325). After the Neronic wave had passed over 
the capital, the wash of it was felt on the far shores of the 
provinces (cp. 412); the dramatic publicity of the punishment 
must have spread the name of Christian wrdi et ordi, far and 
wide over the empire; the provincials would soon hear of it, 

* It tells against this explanation, however, that Tertullian deliberately 
renders the word, not by de/ator, but by sfeculator alieni (Scorp. 12). P. 
Schmidt (ZW7., 1907, 28f.) compares the oath taken by the Christians of 
Pliny’s provinces to abstain from misappropriation of trust funds (ne fidem 
fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent); but the ὡς before ἀλλ. 
separates it from the preceding adjectives. 

+ A. Bischoff (ZVW., 1906, 271-274) prefers to think of Christians 
exposing themselves to the /ex mazestat’s by imprudent, if generous, resent- 
ment against the authorities on behalf of some ill-used fellow-citizen ; but 
this interpretation, suggested long ago by Bengel, hardly seems broad enough 
by itself to explain the warning of the text. For the danger caused by 
delatores within Judaism after a.D. 70, cp. Joseph. B. J. vii. 3. 3, ete. 


Ὁ Barth (Zin/. p. 127) compares the effects produced throughout the 
French provinces by the massacre of St. Bartholomew. 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 327 


and, when they desired a similar outburst at the expense of 
local Christians, all that was needed was a proconsul to gratify 
their wishes, and some outstanding disciple like Antipas or 
Polykarp to serve as a victim. 

§ 3. Destination and origin.—The epistle is addressed to 
the Christian churches (cp. 513) in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 
Asia, and Bithynia. The order, from NE. to 5. and W. (cp. p. 94), 
reflects the road followed by the bearer of the letter, who was to 
take the trade-route by sea to Amisus or Heraclea or Sinope, 
and thence make a circuit through the four* provinces in 
question, returning finally to Bithynia (so Ewald and Hort, cp. 
EBi. iii. 3806-3807). Why these particular districts are 
mentioned, to the exclusion of Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Lycia, it 
is as difficult to explain as to account satisfactorily for the 
selection of the seven Asiatic cities in Apoc 2-3; in any case 
their order is natural, upon the presupposition that the bearer 
sailed from Rome to Pontus. As a glance at the map is enough 
to show, “the order Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia is an exact 
inversion of the order which would present itself to a writer 
looking mentally towards Asia Minor from Babylon.” + The 
facilities of travel throughout the empire, and the habit of 
exchanging copies of such letters between the churches, would 
render the dissemination of the epistle quite possible, even if we 
supposed that the bearer had only a single copy to begin with. - 
The explicit mention of neighbouring provinces in the title puts 
the pastoral on a different footing from, ¢g., James, Judas, and 
2 Peter. 


This assumes that Βαβυλών in 515 is a symbolic term for Rome—an 
interpretation which accords with the figurative language upon Israel (12 2519), 


*z.¢. (i.) Bithynia and Pontus, (ii.) Galatia, (iii.) Cappadocia, and (iv.) 
Asia. Bithynia (Ac 16’) and Cappadocia, so far as we know, were never 
evangelised by Paul, but (cp. p. 53) their Christianity may be explained by 
Ac 253 (where Hemsterhuis and Valckenaer conj. Βιθυνίαν for ᾿Ιουδαίαν), 
which would also throw light on the Pontus and Cappadocia of 1 P 1]. 
Galatia was a Pauline sphere (2 Ti 4!°), as was Asia in part, but the tone of 
Galatians suggests that there must have been some local interest in Peter, 
Whether Peter ever travelled in these districts, it is impossible to say. At 
all events the Gentile Christians must have largely outnumbered the Jewish 
Christians by the time that 1 Peter was written (cp. 5 7. xxviii. q11f.). 

+ So Hort (p. 168), after Bengel. Cilicia is omitted because it belonged 
to Syria till about a.D. 74, whilst Pamphylia and Lycia might roughly be 
regarded as ‘‘ outside the Taurus.” 


228 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


the early patristic tradition (Eus. H. £. ii. 15, quoting Papias and Clem. 
Alex. as his authorities, so Jerome), which knew of no Christian church at 
Babylon nor of any visit of Peter to that region, the association of Mark 
(see above) with the apostle, and the allusion in 215 (εἴτε βασιλεῖ. . . εἴτε 
ἡγεμόσιν). Erbes (ZXG., 1901, pp. 16 f.), in his attempt to disprove Peter’s 
death at Rome (so van Manen), denies the mystical sense of Babylon,* and, 
like Solger (following Grimm and Hase), supposes that Peter went te the 
Assyrian + Babylon itself (in 58, Solger). The presence of Jews in the 
latter district may be granted, but persecution and plague had reduced 
them sadly in the fifth and sixth decades of the century; the Syriac tradition 
is strangely silent upon any such mission ; and Thomas, not Peter, is associated 
with the evangelisation of Parthia. Besides, the figurative description of 
Mark in 58> as my son, tells in favour of the spiritual interpretation of 
Βαβυλών in the immediately preceding words, no less than against the theory 
which would see in ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ an allusion to Peter’s wife (so 
Bengel, Mayerhoff, Jachmann, Alford, Stanley, and Bigg), who accompanied 
her husband on his mission-tours (1 Co 95) and was not unknown to later 
tradition. Apart from the fact that the phrase is an extremely singular 
description of an individual, it would be very awkward to follow it up with 
a reference, which was not literal (though some, ¢.g. Bengel and Stanley, 
would take it literally), to wy son Marcus. The combination of ‘the church 
in Babylon’ (especially in greeting a series of churches) ‘and my spiritual 
son’ is much more likely than ‘my wife and my spiritual son,’ particularly 
as Peter is said to have been a father (Eus. H. Z&. iii. 30. 1; Clem. Alex. 
Strom. iii. 6. 52). His mission at Rome is probably historical. 


There is no hint in the epistle of any trouble between Jewish 
and Gentile Christians, and no allusion to the vexed question 
of the Law. The audience present to the writers mind is 
composed of Christians regarded as the true Israel (ἐκλεκτοῖς 
παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς), who were aliens in a world of suffering 
and persecution. Their pre-Christian condition was one of 
religious ignorance (114 ἄγνοια, cp. Eph 418, Ac 17%), in which 
they were no feople of God (2% 30), but the long destined 
purpose of God’s salvation had been achieved in them (1°12), 


* So after Calvin, Alford, Dean Stanley (Sermons and Essays on A post. 
Age, p. 68), Johnstone (of. czt. pp. 23-28), and Kithl (pp. 264 f.) among modern 
critics, The arguments for Rome, as against the Mesopotamian Babylon, are 
best put by Windischmann (pp. 130-133), Seufert (ZW7., 1885, 146-156), 
Salmon (777. pp. 440 f.), Lightfoot (Clement, ii. pp. 491 f.), Zahn (Zzx/. 
ii. 19 f.), and Burger (pp. 154 f.). 

+The tradition connecting Mark with Alexandria, and the possibility of 
the Preaching of Peter having an Egyptian origin, might tell in favour of 
the Egyptian Babylon, a Roman fortress in Old Cairo (cp. Cone, 2&2. 3681), 
whose claims were advocated by Le Clerc, Mill, Pearson, Pott, and Greswell. 
Michaelis thought of Seleucia, Semler (following Pearson, Harduin, and 
some others) of Jerusalem, 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 329 


and they were now the true and the new People (210). All 
this points to Gentile Christians as the preponderating and 
characteristic element in the churches addressed. Since there 
were Jewish settlements throughout these provinces, the local 
churches in all likelihood included members of Jewish birth, 
probably also some who had been proselytes.* This would 
account in part for the familiarity with the LXX which the 
writer presupposes; besides, it adds point to several of his 
appeals. But of the Gentile Christian character of the main body 
(Cassiodorus: ‘Petri ad gentes’) there can be no doubt (cp. 
Grimm, pp. 657 f., and Hoennicke, /C. pp. 113-117). Even a 
phrase like πατροπαράδοτος in connection with ἀναστροφή (118), 
which might imply Jewish converts, would well apply to the 
strong yoke of hereditary pagan custom “ built up and sanctioned 
by the accumulated instincts and habits of past centuries of 
ancestors.” ¢ Finally, the tone of 434 puts it beyond doubt that 
the readers had been pagans prior to their conversion; such a 
description would not apply to Jewish Christians. 

§ 4. Relation to Paul and Paulinism.—t1 P. is therefore a 
pastoral addressed to the Gentile Christians north of the Taurus 
in Asia Minor. The writer evidently did not belong to the 
evangelists who had founded the local churches (112), for the 
tradition reported by Origen (apud Eus. 4. 25. iii. 1), that Peter 
evangelised the Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, 
and Asia, is little more than an inference from 1 P 11. The 
writer neither refers to any previous visit, nor promises a 
visit. His knowledge of the conditions of his readers does not 
imply any close personal relationship such as that presupposed 
in Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia, and there is no hint 


“ The idea, at one time advocated by some critics (e.g. Michaelis, Zz. 
8 246), that the epistle was meant for proselytes of the gate (cp. 25) has no 
basis in facts. The other view, which limited the epistle to Jewish Christians 
(so, ¢.g., Augusti, Pott, de Wette, and Bertholdt), is mainly advocated to-day 
by Weiss and Kiihl, partly on their peculiar and untenable theory of the date 
of the epistle, partly on erroneous exegetical grounds. Thus, even had Paul 
not written Ro 9%, it would be daring to argue that because Hosea’s words, 
cited in 1 P. 219, originally referred to the Jews, they must bear the same 
reference in this connexion. 

t So Hort (p. 76), who refers to Gataker’s note on M. Aurel. iv. 6; cp. 
Denney, Zhe Death of Christ, pp. 93 f. The Jewish Christian character 
of the readers of x P. is assumed by Shailer Mathews, Messzanic Hope in 
NT (1906), pp. 150 f.; but this hypothesis is almost entirely abandoned. 


330 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


of what title he had to address these Asiatic believers.* He 
simply writes as an apostle of Jesus Christ. This impression of 
indefiniteness, however, is due to the scanty records of the evan- 
gelisation of Asia Minor during the first century, even within 
Paul’s lifetime. The difficulty is really not removed by the 
pseudonymous hypothesis, for even it assumes that readers of 
the epistle were meant to understand that Peter had had some 
connection with these provinces. 


The internal evidence of the epistle reveals an interesting affinity (which 
Semler was one of the first to bring out) which is almost equally difficult, 
viz., with the writings as well as with the religious ideas of Paul. The 
echoes of Romans, if not of Galatians, are unmistakable. The language 
of 15 (φρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως els σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ 
ἐσχάτῳ) echoes Gal 333 (ἐφρουρούμεθα εἰς τὴν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι), though 
the ideas differ ; and 216 closely parallels Gal 513, More clearly, however, 
12 answers to Ro 12%, and 2! (τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, αἵτινες στρατεύονται 
κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ὑμῶν) recalls Ro 778 (ἕτερον νόμον ἐν rots μέλεσίν μου ἀντι- 
στρατευόμενον τ. v.); while 23.146 is an obvious reminiscence of the thought in 
Ro 13}4, just as 25 is of Ro 12}, or 135 of Ro 12?, or 3᾽ of Ro12"”, The 
quotation in 25 ὃ need not necessarily + have been moulded by Paul’s language 
in Ro 9**3; but a comparison of both epistles, in the order and expression 
of thought, reveals a relationship which is not explicable except on the 
hypothesis that the one was written by a man who knew the other (cp. e.g. 
2!—Ro 9%, 471=Ro 12% 6), The dependence is naturally on the side of 
1 Peter.t Apart altogether from the other evidence which places.1 Peter 
not earlier than the seventh decade, Paul’s originality of thought and style 
is too well marked to admit of the hypothesis that he was the borrower. 


But while an acquaintance not only with the general con- 
ceptions, but also with one or two of the epistles of Paul (e.g. 
1 Co 41. 108 1 P 21f —Col 38, 1 Co 1620 =1 P 516) is indubitable, 
the writer is by no means a Paulinist. His attitude is rather 
that of the common practical consciousness pervading the 


* If Paul wrote to the Roman and the Colossian churches, which he had 
not founded, and which contained a proportion at least of Jewish Christians, 
there is no great reason to hesitate about the probability of Peter having sent 
a pastoral to the Gentile Christians of Northern Asia Minor. 

+ The common use of a non-Septuagintal version of Is 2816 might be 
due to a florilegium (see above, p. 24); but the context suggests that the 
writer of 1 P. was not independent of Paul at this point, and this is corrobor- 
ated by other data of the epistle. 

+ This is now admitted on almost all hands; for the evidence in detail, 
see especially Briickner’s Chron. pp. 13-31; S. Davidson, 77. i. 538 f.; 
Sanday and Headlam, Romans (/CC.), pp. Ixxiv-Ixxvi ; Usteri (of. cit. pp. 
279 f.), and Vélter (see below), pp. 28-31, with Seufert’s elaborate article 
in ZWT., (1874) pp. 360-388. 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 331 


churches,—a consciousness which was prior to Paul, and in which 
Paulinism, for the most part, operated merely as a ferment. 
The proper appreciation of this central popular Christianity in 
the apostolic age is vital to the proper focus for viewing the 
early Christian literature. Instead of 1 Peter representing a 
diluted and faded Paulinism, it denotes an attitude influenced, 
but essentially uncontrolled, by the special ideas of Paul’s 
theology. The latter’s faith-mysticism, his conception of justi- 
fication, and his eschatology, are absent from this writer’s 
pages, which reflect the outlook of a primitive Christian who 
had breathed the messianic atmosphere of the better Judaism. 
He criticises neither the Law nor the ritual of the OT. He has 
only two distinctive ‘theological’ ideas (11 31%), and each is 
used practically (cp. ERE. v. ποῖ, and Denney’s Death of 
Christ, p. 86). 


On the hypothesis that Peter wrote the epistle, this ‘ Pauline’ feature 
might be accounted for by the fact that when Peter reached Rome, he must 
have found Romans a treasured possession in the archives of the local 
church. Already he must have been fairly familiar with the central ideas 
of Paul’s preaching ; the difference between them, which emerged at Antioch, 
was practical in the main, and their general conception of the gospel 
and its obligations was fairly alike, so far as we have any evidence on 
the point. Like Paul, he was not averse to consorting with Gentile 
Christians (Gal 21716), and he, too, believed in justification, not by the law, 
but by faith in Jesus Christ. This would explain in part the ‘‘ marriage of 
true minds” which is involved in the relation of 1 P. to the earlier Pauline 
gospel. On the other hand, Peter’s nature was not speculative.* He was 
much more receptive and much less original than Paul. Hence his un- 
theological temperament would naturally lead him to use phrases like ἐν 
Χριστῷ (315 510. 14), and conceptions such as that of regeneration, for his own 
purposes of practical exhortation ; cp. Maurenbrecher’s Von Jerusalem nach 
Rom (1910), 247 f., and Kennedy in #7. (1916) 264 f. 

§ 5. Zhe authorship.—The Pauline cast of the epistle need 
not, however, be wholly attributed to Peter himself. Silvanus, 
his amanuensis,t had been associated with Paul in the 
Macedonian mission (1 Th 1}, 2 Th 1?) and at Corinth (2 Co 
119), after which (Ac 185) he disappears from view. It cannot 
be too often and too emphatically denied that because an early 
Christian formed one of Paul’s céterie, he must therefore have 


* This consideration is brought out by Renan (ii. ch. v.) and Wernle (Syzop- 
tische Frage, pp. 199f.); see also Rapp’s essay in PAZ. (1898) pp. 323-337. 

+ Mark (513) and Glaukias (Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 17) were the other 
interpreters or secretaries whose names have been preserved. 


232 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


assimilated the apostle’s entire theological system. At the same 
time, the probability is that Silvanus, during this early association 
with Paul, naturally acquired a sympathy or familiarity with his 
characteristic modes of thought and expression, and that as 
naturally these emerged when he wrote out what Peter had in 
substance dictated. 


It does not follow that because Peter apparently did not write down his 
reminiscences of Jesus, he could not have written an epistle in Greek. And 
the Greek of this epistle, which is fairly correct and even idiomatic in style, 
is mainly drawn from the vocabulary of the LXX; in fact,* from certain 
sections of the LXX (e.g. 155 with Dt 10-12, 2?=Dt 119, 39=1176t 215, 
58=118 etc.). But the numerous reminiscences of the LXX, together 
with traces of an acquaintance with Philo (cp. Salmon, /V7. 506), the 
book of Wisdom,t and 2 Maccabees, a large proportion of classical words, 
and a general style which ‘ shows that the writer within certain limits had a 
very considerable appreciation of, and power over, the characteristic usages 
of Greek’ (Chase, p. 782), suggest the likelihood that the conceptions of the 
apostle owe something of their characteristic setting to his amanuensis, 
According to Papias, Peter needed Mark as his ἑρμηνευτής even in the work 
of preaching. Asa native of Galilee, he cannot have been wholly unfamiliar 
with colloquial Greek, but even the power of speaking in a language does 
not imply skill in composition, and without denying Peter’s ability to address 
audiences in Greek—which was essential to his mission-work—or his ac- 
quaintance not simply with the LXX but with the religious traditions 
circulated by books like Enoch, we are entitled to conclude that he 
required the services of a man like Silvanus} to compose such an epistle 
as the present, just as he needed Mark, if his reminiscences of Jesus were to 
be committed to writing. ““ Tradition tells us that St. Peter employed more 
than one interpreter ; it is indeed hard not to think that we have the work 
of one in the First Ep. Is it credible that a Galilean fisherman who left 
out his H’s (that, we are told, is what Mt 2673 implies) ὃ should after middle 
life, and in the midst of absorbing occupations, have learnt to write 


* Cp. Scharfe (SX., 1889, pp. 650 f.). The writer’s fondness for Isaiah 
(e.g. 1% =Is 4o%™, 26 =Ts 8M 2818, 2% —Ts 43%, 2% —Ts 53% % 12 5 also 
Ub=Ts 537-8, p8=Is 538, 2%>=Is gol, 3 --]ς 818 29%, 414-1ς 113, 4 = 
Is 2529) may have been one reason why he followed the symbolic method of 
alluding to Rome as Babylon (cp. Is 47' etc.). But that reference is earlier 
than the first literary evidence for it, ¢.g., in Sib. Or. 5! (cp. DB. i. 
214-215). 

+ Cp. 2%=Sap: 1°34, 3%=Sap 14° ete. 

+ Eichhorn thought of John Mark as the writer who worked up Peter’s 
ideas, or (according to Baronius) translated them from Hebrew into Greek. 
But the translation-hypothesis (so Jerome: from Aramaic) is untenabJe in 
view of the style. 

§ Not necessarily a mark of illiteracy, however (cp. C, F. Hogg, £7. iit 
420-427). 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 333 


scholarly Greek like this?” * The query cannot but be answered in the 
negative. 

The recognition of the share of Silvanus in writing the 
epistle (Ewald, Grimm) has spread in recent years; it is 
advocated in different forms by Zahn, Usteri, Bacon, Bigg, 
Monnier, and Hart. In this event Peter either dictated the 
letter, the phrase διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ἔγραψα (512) being equivalent 
practically to expressions like Ac 152228, Ro 16%; Polyk. ad 
Phil. τα; Ign. Rom. το, etc. (cp. Link, SX., 1896, pp. 405-436), 
or entrusted its composition (Zahn, Feine, Wohlenberg) to 
Silvanus, revising and sanctioning his work. As the latter was in 
all likelihood the bearer, there was no need of his inserting a 
special salutation from himself (as from Tertius in Ro 16%); 512 
not only accredits him as an apostolic delegate, but possibly 
implies that he will supplement by means of oral teaching and 
information what the apostle has briefly incorporated in the 
epistle.t{ This may stamp the epistle, if one choose to say so, 
as semi-pseudonymous. At any rate it serves to account fairly 
for the data of the letter, the primitive and even Petrine cast 
of the ideas on the one hand, and the power of handling 
Greek upon the other.§ That the general tone and standpoint 
are Peter’s, need not be doubted, in view of the coincidences 
between the epistle and the speeches of Peter in Acts. 

The responsibility of Silvanus for the epistle’s form and 
contents is pushed a step further by those who, like Seufert, 
Baljon, von Soden, Spitta, and R. Scott (Zhe Pauline Epistles, 
208 f.), make him its author after Peter’s death. But, while 
Silvanus was undoubtedly an apostle (1 Th 2°) and prophet 
(Ac 155?) himself, and while this or almost any form of the 
pseudonym-hypothesis is legitimate and indeed deserving of 

* Simcox, The Writers of the NT. (p. 68). ‘*En tout cas, la langue de 
Pépitre ne peut guére étre la sienne.... On ne voit guére L’ardent 
Galiléen équilibrant ses phrases, s’appliquant ἃ enchainer exactement ses 
propositions ” (Monnier, pp. 315 f.). 

+ Dionysius of Corinth (agud Eus. H. &. iv. 23. 11), writing to the 
Roman church, refers to the epistle of Clem. Rom. as a previous communica- 
tion from Rome, τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν, 1.64. the author 
is regarded as the mouthpiece of the Roman church, 

Φ Erasmus misread the verse as a reference to some previous epistle 
composed by Silvanus. 

§ When Josephus wrote his history of the Jewish war, ‘‘after all my 
materials were prepared for the work, I employed some co//aborateurs to be 
quite aw fait in the Greek idioms ” (AZion, i. 9, tr. Shilleto). 


334 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


serious consideration in view of the enigmatic data of the 
writing, the self-praise of 512 becomes offensive on such a view. 
Besides, the age and authority of Silvanus would not have 
required any extraneous aid, in order to address the Asiatic 
Christians then, and the theory fails to explain why he chose 
Peter instead of Paul as his mouthpiece. 

The lack of detailed personal reference to the life and words 
of Jesus has also been felt to tell heavily against the conception 
that the epistle could have been written by an apostle, and 
especially by so intimate an apostle and disciple as Simon Peter. 
This objection, however, is less serious than it seems. For one 
thing, the criterion presupposed is unhistorical; the supreme 
interests of the first generation of disciples were not biographical. 
For another thing, we have no evidence to establish a standard 
of what or how a disciple of Jesus would have written of him 
in a letter of exhortation addressed to a Christian church or 
group of churches. The so-called first epistle of John, on the 
supposition that it was composed by the son of Zebedee, has less 
biographical detail than First Peter; and even those who hold 
that the epistle of James* was written by the son of Alphzeus, 
will admit that, for all its wealth of apparent allusions to the 
sayings of Jesus, it is practically devoid of any explicit allusion 
to his earthly career. Peter was accustomed to give re- 
miniscences of the Lord’s acts and words in his preaching. 
A transcript of these forms the basis of Mark’s gospel; and 
although the latter was not yet published, any early Christian 
churches would be in possession of a certain catechetical 
summary of the Lord’s chief sayings and of the main events 
of his career. The existence and circulation of such evangelic 
manuals in the primitive churches is highly probable, from the 
historical standpoint ; the Christian confession, Jesus ts the Christ, 
would have lacked meaning, had not catechumens learnt 
authoritatively to put some content into the term Jesws. Con- 
sequently any apostle like Peter might presuppose an elementary 
acquaintance with the historical outline of the Lord’s life, so 
far as that was essential to the purposes of vital Christianity. 
First Peter not only does presuppose it, especially in connection 


* James has more of the letter but less of the spirit of the gospels. 1 Peter 
contains much fewer reminiscences (cp. Scharfe, 138f.) of the sayings of 
Jesus, in their synoptic form, but it is superior to Jas. in its intuitions of 
the genuinely Christian spirit. 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 335 


with the messianic hopes of the OT, but also conveys unob- 
trusively certain allusions to Christ’s life which harmonise with 
Peter’s discipleship (18 whom, having not seen, ye love; 22% 
51). If the epistle lacked the opening word (/eéer), says 
Jilicher (Ziz/. p. 178), no one would have conjectured that 
Peter wrote it. But this is as valid an argument—so far as it 
is valid—in favour of its Petrine origin. A writer who desired 
to write under Peter’s name would probably have emphasised 
his figure. As a matter of fact, we have in 2 P (1! etc.) an 
illustration of how a later writer would go to work who desired 
to lend vraisemblance to an epistle purporting to come from 
Peter ; the apostle is made to speak prophetically of a future age, 
stress is laid on his qualifications as an eye-witness of Jesus, and 
an irenical allusion to Paul occurs. The absence of such traits 
in 1 P. is really a point in its favour. 


A supplementary point is the consonance between the religious ideas 
of the epistle and those of the Petrine speeches in Acts: ¢.g. God no 
respecter of persons (117=Ac 10%), the cleansing of the soul through faith 
(172=Ac 15%), the rejoicing in shame (418: 1®= Ac 541), etc. These data are 
not decisive. They might (i.) point to the use of the earlier traditions by a 
later writer, who had access to them either in Acts or in their original shape. 
Or, (ii.) they might in some cases be no more than illustrations of the common 
fund of ideas and expressions within the primitive church. But when one 
makes allowance for the difference of circumstances (as, ¢.g., Mayerhoff, pp. 
218f., fails to do), there is enough to indicate that the tradition underlying the 
speeches reflects the same mind as the epistle.* 

§ 6. Traces in early Christian literature.—The evidence for the exist- 
ence and authority of the epistle in the church is both ample and early. As 
Eusebius pointed out (4. Z. iv. 14. 9, ὅ γέ τοι Πολύκαρπος ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ πρὸς 
Φιλιππησίους αὐτοῦ γραφῇ pepouévy els δεῦρο, κέχρηταί τισι μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς 
Πέτρου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς), the epistle was familiar to Polykarp) ;f this is 


* For this primitive type of early Christian thought, especially in connection 
with the Petrine tradition preserved by Luke in Acts 1-5, cp. Ritschl’s 
Entstehung*, pp. 116f., 285; Reuss, W77%. ii. pp. 262f.; P. Ewald, das 
Hauptproblem d. Euginfrage, pp. 68-75 ; Mangold (NT. pp. 659f.), Jacoby 
(V7 Ethik, pp. 220f.), Stevens (V77%. pp. 258f.), with B. Riggenbach 
(ZSchw., 1890, 185-195), and De Faye (44. 164f.). 

f While the allusions to 1 Peter in Polykarp, though introduced by no 
explicit formula of quotation, render it beyond question that the bishop knew 
the epistle, he never mentions Peter as the author, although he frequently 
cites Paul by name. This feature is employed by Harnack (7ZZ., 1887, p. 
218) to show that the epistle or homily was as yet destitute of its Petrine 
address and conclusion (see below, § 8). But the inference is not con- 
clusive. Paul had been at Philippi, to which Polykarp was writing; Peter, 
so far as we know, had not (contrast the case of Corinth in Clem. Rom.). 


336 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


evident from echoes so distinct as, ¢.g., i. 3 (els ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες πιστεύετε χαρᾷ 
ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ els ἣν πολλοὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν εἰσελθεῖν) Ξε 18. 19, ii, 1 
(διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας δουλεύσατε τῷ Θεῷ . . . πιστεύσαντες εἰς τὸν 
ἐγείραντα τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόντα αὐτῷ δόξαν) 
Ξε 118-21, ἢ, 2 (μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας) = 3°, 
v. 3=2" (cp. Gal 537), vi. 3 (ζηλωταὶ περὶ τὸ καλόν) Ξε 3.3, vii. 2 (νήφοντες πρὸς 
τὰς εὐχάς) Ξ- 47, viii. 1-2ΞΞ 251, amongst others (GX. i. 957 f., ΝΜΖΑ͂. pp. 
86-89). The use of the epistle in Clem. Rom. is less copious and clear, but 
on the whole visible in passages like vii. 2f., where, after exhorting the 
Corinthians to abandon idle and vain thoughts (118), Clement bids them fix 
their eyes on ‘the blood of Christ and know ὡς ἔστιν τίμιον τῷ Θεῷ τῷ πατρὶ 
αὐτοῦ᾽ (-Ξ 113-19), following this up with an allusion to its redeeming power 
and to Noah’s preaching of repentance (339) ; or in lix. 2 (ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ 
σκότους els φῶς, ἀπὸ ἀγνωσίας els ἐπίγνωσιν δόξης ὀνόματυς αὐτοῦ) ΞΞ 25" 15, 
The parallel of xxxvi. 2, ἀναθάλλει εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς (=2°), is 
dubious, owing to the textual uncertainty about θαυμαστόν (=om. Syr. 
Clem. Alex.). But the hypothesis of an agraphon (Resch, Agrapha, p. 248) 
must not be allowed to affect the force of the argument * from xlix. 5, where 
Pr 107 is quoted in a form which, differing from the Hebrew text and the 
LXX alike, occurs in 1 P 48. Here, as elsewhere, it is possible (p. 24) 
that both passages independently derive from some common source, either a 
manual of citations or a Greek version of Proverbs ; but this supposition is 
needless in view of the other evidence,t ¢.g. the occurrence in Clem. as 
in 1 P. alone of ἀδελφότης (ii. 4, 27 5%) in the sense of brotherhood, 
ἀγαθοποιΐα (ii. 2, 413), and ὑπογραμμός (27, cp. xvi. where it is also used, 
with a citation from Is 53, of Christ’s lowly patience). In Zk. v. 2-3, 
Ignatius uses ποιμήν and ἐπίσκοπος together (1 P 57) in a context where he 
also quotes Pr 38 (1 P 55) to enforce the duty of submission on the part 
of members towards their superiors in the church; but neither this nor 
any other resemblances (e.g. Magn. xiii. 2=55, ad Polyk. iv. 3=2°) can be 
said to prove that the epistle was known to Ignatius, or at least used 
by him. In Barn. iv. 11f. (μελετῶμεν τὸν φόβον τοῦ Θεοῦ. . . ὁ Κύριος 
ἀπροσωπολήμπτως κρινεῖ τὸν κόσμον" ἕκαστος καθὼς ἐποίησεν κομιεῖται) the 


Besides, Polykarp more than once adopts silently the words of Paul (e.g. 
ili. 3=Gal 4%, iv. r=1 Ti 6, vi. 2=Ro 14) 13) as he does those of 1 Peter ; 
and even the quotations from the former, introduced by εἰδότες ὅτι, are epi- 
grammatic and axiomatic statements, ‘ while the phrases quoted from 1 Peter 
are rather of a hortatory type’ (Chase, p. 781a). 

* The quotation in Ja 5” is slightly different. As Pr 3% is quoted not 
only in 1 P 5° but in Ja 45, its occurrence in Clem. xxx. 2 cannot safely be 
drawn upon in this connexion. 

+ The greeting (p. 352) goes back in part to the LXX (εἰρήνη ὑμῖν 
πληθυνθείη, Dn 3° 6%), though its Christian expansion and stamp were 
probably due to 1 P 1%, A contemporary Jewish phrase is the x30° pane 
in the address of the official letters sent by R. Gamaliel of Jerusalem to the 
Jews of the Dispersion (cp. Derenbourg’s L’ Histoire et la Géographie de la 
Palestine, i. pp. 242f.). These letters were dictated to John, his secretary 


(cp. 1 P 5%). 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 337 


ideas and language of 1 P 127 recur, just as the conception of the OT 
prophets having been inspired to anticipate Christ’s suffering (1 F 1195) is 
reproduced in v. 5-6; but no stress can be laid on this, while the only other 
parallels (πάσης χάριτος, of God: xxi. 9=5"; α spiritual temple built up unto 
the Lord, xvi. 10 cp. 2°) of moment are indecisive. 

The lonely echoes in the Didaché (i. 4, ἀπέχου τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ 
σωματικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν -- 21} ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν) and Diognetus 
(ix. 2=3}8) contrast with the more numerous coincidences * between Hermas 
and 1 Peter. But none of these seems quite decisive, and their cumulative 
force does not involve any literary relation between the two writings. The same 
holds true of 2 Clement (xiv. 2=1, xvi. 4=48), and even of Justin Martyr. 
On the other hand, Papias knew and used the epistle (Eus. 2,7. &. iii. 39. 17), 
as did ol πάλαι πρεσβύτεροι (iii. 3. 1), and the echoes of it in the epistle from 
Lyons and Vienne show (Eus. H. £. v. 1-2) that it was one of the scriptures 
current in Gaul by the middle of the second century. By the time of 
Tertullian (Ronsch, das NT Tert. pp. 556f.), Irenzeus, Origen, and Clement 
of Alexandria (Zahn’s Forschungen, iii. 79 f.), it was freely quoted as Petrine ; 
but ‘the actual traces of the early use of 1 Peter in the Latin churches are 
very scanty. There is not the least evidence to show that its authority was 
ever disputed, but, on the other hand, it does not seem to have been much 
read’ (Westcott, Canon, p. 263). Thus, while included in the Peshitta, it 
is not mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, though the Apocalypse of Peter 
is canonized. The omission may have been accidental, as in the case of 
Hebrews, and, as the document in question is mutilated, it may have been 
really mentioned, although none of the attempts to find a place for it in the 
extant text possesses any critical significance. Nevertheless by this time the 
epistle was elsewhere known, and known as Petrine. From Clem. Alex. 
(Strom. iv. 12. 81) it is possible to infer that Basilides, and, from a fragment 
of Theodotus (12), that the Valentinian school of the East, may also have 
read the epistle (for the Aypotyposezs, see Zahn’s Forschungen, iii. 133 f.), but 
its character was not likely to commend it to the Gnostics in general. 

On the other hand, the simpler and more direct character of the epistle 
appears to indicate its priority to Ephesians.f The fact that both encyclicals 
to the Asiatic churches open with the same formula (Blessed be the God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, etc.) is not robbed of its significance 
by the occurrence of Blessed be God, who created heaven and earth, at the 
opening of the king of Tyre’s letter quoted by Eusebius (Prep. Euang. ix. 34) 
from Eupolemus ; for, although Paul (2 Co 1°) partially adapted the Jewish 
formula, its Petrine form is unique. The following paragraph (15-8) is carried 


* Cp. Zahn’s Hirten des Hermas (pp. 423f.), W7A. 115-117, and Spitta, 
Orc. ii. 391-399 (where the dependence is assigned to 1 Peter). For echoes 
in the Odes of Solomon, see /7S. xv. 47-52. 

780 Schwegler, Ewald (Sieben Sendschreiben, pp. 156f.), Davidson, 
Hénig, but especially Hilgenfeld (ZW7., 1873, 465-498, ZEin/. 624f.), 
Clemen (Paulus, i. 139f.), and W. Briickner (Chron. pp. 41f.), with B. 
Weiss (Petr. Lehrbegriff, 426 f.) and Kiihl, of course, as against Koster (pp. 
207 f.), P. Ewald (of. cst. 28 f.), Klopper (pp. 33f.), and particularly Holtz- 
mann (X7ritik. der Eph. ὦ. Col. Briefe, pp. 260f.). 


338 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


on with ἐν ᾧ and participles, as in Eph 1518, whilst in Eph 138° ἐλπίς and 
κληρονομία are correlated, on the basis of human faith supported by the divine 
δύναμις, as in 1 P 1®5, Further parallels of thought and language occur in 
EP ee = Eph ΠΟ τι Epp 6, or Pir Ξ ΒΡ δον ΡΒ 118 Ξ 
Eph: 4%. 1 P 17 =Ephis’ 3 ΤΡ *—Eph 1™, 1 P2’@—Eph πο Bie 
= Eph. 20% 203) gabe — Eph is 1 P24 Eph Ὅν ΡΠ ΞΈΝΗΝ 
17-23 (a specially striking coincidence), 1 P 3+5=Eph 5%”, 1 P 34=Eph 
34,1 P.3’=Eph 5, 1 Pat *=Eph, 25“: ΣΡ 4!=Eph 3% ΒΟ τ" 
διάβολος, not σατανᾶς, both reproduce the ‘descensus ad inferos’ (1 P 3!9= 
Eph 455); the predominance of Aofe in 1 P. corresponds to its prominence 
in Eph. (cp. 118 213 44), and common to both are terms like ἀκρογωνιαῖος and 
εὔσπλαγχνος. The affinities between the two, not only in phraseology but in 
structure and conception, involve a literary relationship which implies that 
the one drew upon the other, unless we admit, with Seufert and R. Scott, 
that both were written by Silvanus. Either Peter knew Ephesians, or, if the 
latter is post-Pauline, the author of Ephesians more probably was acquainted 
with the Petrine pastoral. 

The connection with James is practically of the same nature. Both P. 
and Jas. use διασπορά in a derived sense in their addresses, both emphasise τὸ 
δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως (17=Ja 15) under the fire of trial and temptation (16 Ξε 
Ja 17), both employ a special rendering of Pr 10! (48=Ja 5%; cp. Field’s 
Notes on Tr. of NT. 239), and both follow up the citation from Pr 3% by an 
admonition to submit to God and to resist the devil (5§* =Ja 4°); common 
to both, among the NT writers, are ἀνυπόκριτος, ἄσπιλος, παρακύπτω, and 
στηρίζω, and there are further parallelisms in 18=Ja 118, 13=Ja 138, 21" 
=Ja 1, 211--7 41, 2%=Ja 51%, 315-6 Ja 318. ct—Jas 112, s6=Ja 410 (see 
Spitta’s ὅγε. ii. 184 f.). The dependence of Jas. on 1 P. is argued by Briickner 
(ZW7., 1874, pp. 533f.; Chron. pp. 60-65), Holtzmann (ZW7., 1882, 
pp. 292-310), Wrede (ZC., 1896, 450-451), Grimm, Usteri (pp. 292f.), von 
Soden, and Bigg, as against Sabatier (HS. x. 620f.), Mayor, and Zahn. 
Both handle, from different sides, the same theme, Ζ.4. the Christian under 
suffering. It is possible that in some cases, at any rate, the coincidences may 
be fortuitous, either because the same or a similar topic suggested similar 
language to writers familiar, ¢.g., with the LXX, or because a certain 
community of style and conception prevailed among early Christian writers 
of this class (so Mayerhoff, pp. 115f., and Windisch). But probabilities 
converge on the conclusion that the one writing echoes the other, and, if 
I P. is on other grounds put early, the dependence of Jas. naturally follows 


§ 7. Zhe date.—Within these limits, the theories of the date 
fall into two main classes, pre-Neronic or post-Neronic. The 
former includes the impossible hypothesis of Weiss and Kuhl 
(S.K., 1865, 619-657), that the epistle was written (¢ A.D. 54) 
prior to Romans; but* its leading statement is that which 
assigns the composition of the letter to the period immediately 
or almost immediately preceding a.D. 64 (so, e.g., Hofmann, 


* B. Briickner dates it previous to Paul’s imprisonment at Jerusalem, 
while Gloag chooses A.D. 59-60. 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 339 


Bleek + 62;* Burger 63; Bartlet ας 63; Renan, Cook, Feine, 
and Belser, 63-64; Zahn and Wohlenberg, spring of 64; Lightfoot, 
Monnier, and Chase). But not until the Neronic outburst took 
place was the mere name of Christian enough to expose be- 
lievers to interference and suffering (cp. Workman’s Persecution in 
the Early Church, 1906, pp. 52 f.); and, on the supposition that 
the epistle is connected directly with Peter, the balance of proba- 
bility is strongly in favour of a date subsequent to the massacre 
of 64. Such post-Neronic hypotheses may be conveniently 
subdivided into (i.) those which assign the epistle to a date not 
long after that crisis, ze. between 64 and 67 (so Eichhorn, 
Grimm, Hug, de Wette, Thiersch, Huther, Ewaid, Neander, 
Mayerhoff, L. Schultze’s Hdbuch der theol. Wissensch. i. 2. pp. 
106-109; Reithmayr, Beyschlag’s W7Tx. i. 377-382; Allard’s 
Histoire des persécut.i. pp. 61 f.; Farrar, Early Days of Christt- 
anity, pp. 67-85; Plumptre, Salmon, Bovon’s WT7T*A. ii. 440 f. ; 
Schafer, Zin/. 319-329; Hatch, Hort, Bacon, Sieffert, and 
Barth), and (ii.) those which, abandoning the traditional date 
of Peter’s martyrdom, feel that the references to persecution 
demand the eighth decade (Swete [J/ar, pp. xvii f.]= 70-75 ; 
F. J. Briggs [Critical Review, 1897, pp. 449-454]; and particu- 
larly Ramsay [Zx/.* viii. pp. 8 f., 110 f., 282 f.]}=75-80). The 
former position seems to fit most if not all of the internal 
evidence of the epistle. The latter involves the abandonment 
of a.D. 67 as the traditional terminus ad quem of Peter's life; 
were the countervailing arguments decisive, this might con- 
ceivably be yielded, but, as has been already urged, their weight 
is not heavy enough to tell in favour of so drastic a measure. 
The lack of any reference to Paul,f alive or dead, is at first 
sight surprising, upon the post-Neronic hypothesis. But the 


*This date, during Paul’s imprisonment in the capital, is advocated 
generally by Keil, Steiger, Guericke, Wieseler (Chronologie, pp. 564 f.), and 
Jacquier. Alford thinks of some date ‘between 63 and 67’; Bigg fixes 
on 58-64; and B. W. Henderson (Life and Principate of Nero, 438-439) 
decides for 64. Neither Mr. Henderson nor Dr. Klette (see above), both 
of whom come to the study of this document from the side of ae 
investigation, find any serious objection to the setting of 1 P. in connecti 
with the Roman situation of the seventh decade. 

+ F. W. Lewis (Zxg.° x. 319-320) argues that the epistle must have 
been written after Paul’s death, since the absence of any allusion to him in 
515:15 indicates that Mark and Silvanus had been deprived by death of their 
former leader. 


340 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


critic of ancient as well as of modern literature is well ac- 
customed to instances in which a person or event is ignored by 
a contemporary, although some allusion might more or less 
reasonably be expected. 

The epistle is assigned to Domitian’s reign by A. H. Blom 
(de Brief van Jac. pp. 241 f.), Scholten (Bydragen, 1882, pp. 
79 f.), von Soden (/PT., 1883, 461 f.), Wrede (ZVW., 1900, 
pp. 75-85), 1. Réville (Zes Origines de Pétpiscopat, i. pp. 358 f.), 
and McGiffert (4A. pp. 482 f., 593 f.), as well as by Harnack 
(in its original form, 4.0. 83-93 or even earlier), Soltau (see 
below), Volter (in its original form, before A.D. 96), and Knopf 
(WZ. 90 f.). The objections to this date are (i) that the 
allusions to any so-called persecution do not necessarily (see 
above) point to the Domitianic period; (ii.) that on such a 
hypothesis it is not any easier to understand the geographical 
address of 1! than on the hypothesis that the epistle was 
written by Silvanus for Peter; and (ili.) that the pseudonymous 
theory fails (see above) to account adequately for the lack of 
emphasis on Peter’s prestige and apostolic qualifications. It is 
true that an author who wrote under an apostolic name would 
feel less inclination to emphasise his om de guerre if he wrote 
merely for hortatory purposes than if he had any polemical or 
theological aim (so Wrede). Still, this consideration hardly 
meets the data of 1 P. It is the apparent absence of definite 
motive which tells against the pseudonymous hypothesis most 
heavily. Once the ‘mediating’ tendency of the epistle is 
abandoned, it becomes more difficult than ever to find any 
satisfactory place for it after Peter’s death, and the further down 
we go, the object of the writing becomes less and less obvious. 
Any writer, producing a work under Peter’s name, towards the 
end of the first century, would almost certainly have coloured 
the personality of the apostle to suit not only the tradition 
(cp. Mt 1618 ; Clem. Rom. 40-41), but the contemporary status 
of his office. Volkmar’s hypothesis, that it was composed under 
Antoninus, ¢ A.D. 140 (ZWT., 1861, pp. 427 f.), drops with his ἡ 
idea that Enoch (quoted in 3!) was not written till a.p. 132, and 
in any case the use of the epistle by Polykarp rules such a view 
out of court, as well as that of Zeller (ZWTZ., 1876, pp. 35 f.), 
Steck (/P7., 1891, pp. 561 f.), and van Manen, who adhere 
to Hadrian’s reign. The choice really lies between the age of 
Trajan and that of Domitian. The former view was at one 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 341 


time almost dominant (Cludius, Schwegler’s JVZ. ii. 14 f. ; Hilgen- 
feld, “inl. 624 f.; Baur, Mangold, Lipsius, Keim, Weiz- 
sicker’s AA. ii. 160; W. Briickner, Hausrath, and S. David- 
son, J/VZ. i. 529-563), and is still maintained by Holtzmann 
(GGA, 1894, pp. 27 f.), Schmiedel (2.81. 761-762), Baljon, 
Kreyenbuhl (Zuglm der Wahrheit, i. 97 f.), Pfleiderer (Ure. iv. 
250-251), and P. Schmidt (ZWT., 1907, pp. 24f.). Recently 
there has been a disposition, however, to retreat towards the 
beginning of the second century,* in the direction of a date ¢. 
A.D. 100 rather than A.D. 112-117, as in the case of Cone 
(Gospel and its Interpretations, pp. 260 f.), Jiilicher (GG4A., 
1884, pp. 549 f.), and Gunkel, partly to allow time for the 
epistle’s use by Papias and Polykarp, partly because the alleged 
traces of the Trajanic persecution under Pliny no longer seem 
decisive (indeed, when the imperial cultus was in force, an 
unqualified phrase like that of 217 becomes almost incredible), 
and partly owing to a general retreat from the Tiibingen f idea 
(e.g. Schwegler, ΔΖ. ii. 22) that the epistle represents a second- 
century attempt, from the Jewish Christian side, to come to 
some understanding with the Pauline opposition. The last- 
named conception is no longer defensible or defended, though 
two romantic attempts have been made recently to combine 
part of it with a defence of the Petrine authorship, Zahn 
(Zin/. § 41) suggesting that Gentile Christians would feel in- 


* One unresolved difficulty in the path of this hypothesis lies in the relaxa- 
tion of the imperial régime after Domitian’s assassination in 96. There is 
nothing to account for the sense of pressure about A.D. 100, when there was 
rather a lull in the storm. 

+ Even Mayerhoff (pp. 103 f.) and Reuss (V7 7A. ii. pp. 262 f.) at one 
time detected a mediating tendency in the epistle, while some (e.g. Alford) 
detect in 5’ a ratification of the Pauline type of doctrine originally taught 
in these churches. Schmiedel still takes 5!*f- as an expression of ecclesiastical 
tendency, although in the same breath he avers that ‘‘ the remaining contents 
of the epistle show little of that tendency to bring about a reconciliation 
between Paulinism and Jewish Christianity which the Tiibingen school 
attributed to it” (#&z. 4521). For ‘‘little,” ‘‘nothing” ought to be 
substituted. But, even apart from that, the interpretation is inconsistent and 
inadequate. The coherence and point of the writing are lost, if a special 
and subtle motive is introduced at the very close. Whichever way the 
epistle moves, it must move all together, like Wordsworth’s cloud, if it 
moves at all. Cp. Pfleiderer’s Pau/inzsmus (Eng. tr.), ii. pp. 149 f., and 
Hilgenfield (2W7., 1873, pp. 465 f.). The arguments against the Trajanic 
date are best put by Usteri (pp. 239 f.). 


342 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


spirited and consoled by receiving such counsels of faith from 
one who had been the leader of the circumcision (Gal 27), whilst 
Chase conjectures (p. 790) that Paul actually summoned Peter 
to Rome in order that their co-operation might be an object- 
lesson of unity, and that Silvanus, though the bearer of Peter’s 
letter, was primarily Paul’s messenger to the Asiatic Christians. 


§ 8. Literary structure.—Four endeavours have been made, from dif- 
ferent sides, to show that the writing is of more or less composite origin. 
(a) Harnack’s view (ZU. ii. 2. 106-109, ACL. ii. 1. 451-465), partly antici- 
pated by Cludius, that 11? and 5)*14 represent second-century additions * 
(A.D. 150-175) to an earlier, anonymous homily, in order to guarantee its 
apostolic rights to a place in the rising canon of Christian scriptures, is due 
to his perception of the insuperable difficulties that beset any form of the 
pseudonymous hypothesis ; but it is liable to the crucial objections that (i.) 
it fails to explain why a homily which is ex Ayfothest so devoid of Petrine 
and so full of Pauline Christianity should be attributed to Peter; (ii.) that 
it implies the tract or homily began with Blessed be the God and Father, etc. 
(13)—an opening which is otherwise known to us (cp. 2 Co 1%, Eph 15) only 
as the sequel to the address of an epistle ; t (iii.) that the difficulties in 
11-2 512-14 are at least as explicable on the hypothesis of these verses being 
original as on that of their addition by a later scribe; (iv.) that Harnack 
frankly abandons all attempts to explain why in a so-called ‘catholic’ epistle 
a definite selection of provinces, and, indeed, of such provinces as those of 1', 
should be introduced; (v.) that the true grace of God (513) bears directly, 
though not exclusively, on the main thought of the epistle (cp. 51° after you 
have suffered a little the God of all grace shall, etc.), namely, that the reality 
of God’s grace and the genuineness of his calling are not to be doubted on 
account of the suffering to which they expose the Christian; (vi.) that this 
view involves the unlikelihood of one corrected copy having supplanted the 
numerous uninterpolated copies which must have been in circulation 
throughout the churches before the particular scribe began his work ; and 
(vii.) that the self-designation in 5! (a witness of the sufferings of Christ) 
points naturally to Peter,t whether the epistle is pseudonymous or not, 
rather than to some unknown Roman confessor, just as the following allusion 


* Possibly made by the author of 2 Peter (31). This is as precarious as 
the alternative idea that the writing had originally another address, but it is 
more plausible than the hypothesis that Peter’s name was added by some 
irresponsible scribe, ‘‘who had no idea of giving the epistle canonical 
authority, but thought he saw good reason for regarding it as the work of 
Peter” (McGiffert, 44. p. 596). If the data of the writing afford no suff- 
cient motive for pseudonymity, they are still less likely to have suggested 
Peter to any scribe or copyist. 

+ Similarly, on the analogy of the other early Christian epistles, 51” 
suggests the close of a letter or epistle, not of a homily, and an allusion like 
that of 5! confirms this idea. 

t The similar phrase in 1 Co 15% is not quite parallel, and does not fix 
the sense of the term here. 


THE (FIRST) EPISTLE OF PETER 343 


to shepherding the flock of God (5?) echoes the tradition afterwards voiced 
in Jn 2115 ͵| For these reasons, drawn from internal and external evidence 
alike, this ingenious theory cannot be held to have hit the ford exactly. ἢ 

(4) Soltau’s essay (SA, 1905, 302 f. ; 1906, 456-460),+ starting from the 
erroneous literary criterion that an original writer will eschew verbal repeti- 
tions, disentangles an early Christian tract or homily, written during Domi- 
tian’s reign, from a series of interpolations (11-4 31422 45-6 51-5a. 12-14) with 
smaller insertions, ¢.g., in 1226 25 2120) which transformed it into a Petrine 
epistule. The proofs of literary dependence (5? on Tit 27, 54 on He 13”, 
5°° on Ja 45, and 315: on Col 211} 31), however, are most hazardous; the 
evidence for a difference of tone and style between the original and the later 
additions is not convincing (é.g. 2® explains 513 quite as well as 1, while the 
conceptions of 1)? are not different from those of the body of the writing) ; 
and if κ᾽ does appear slightly disconnected in its present setting, instead of 
regarding it as an interpolation (for which the contents afford no justification), 
I should prefer to regard 51. as a misplaced section which originally lay 
between 37 and 38. 

(c) Volter’s independent attempt (Der Erste Petrusbrief, setne Entste- 
hung und Stellung in der Geschichte des Urchristentums, 1906) distinguishes 
a pseudonymous Petrine epistle, written at Rome previous to the Domitianic 
persecution, from a series of later interpolations (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Πόντου... 
Βιθυνίας, 11; καὶ p. ... πληθυνθείη, 17; τοῦ κυρίου... Χριστοῦ, Ov ἀναστάσεως 
"I. Χ. ἐκ νεκρῶν, 18; ἐν ἀποκ. "I. X., 17; dv. . . πιστεύοντες δὲ, 18; 111}; ἐν 
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποστ. ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ, 112; ἐν dwox. I. X., 118, 118-21 ,χ40Ὁ, διὰ ᾽1. 
X., 25; ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, 25: 271°; τὸν Χριστόν, 515: ἐν Χριστῷ, 318; 318.“ διὰ Ἴ. X., 
41}; 43219; καὶ μάρτυς. .. κοινωνός, 51; εἰδότες. . ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, 59; ὀλίγον 
παθόντας, ἐν Χριστῷ, 5! ; ἐν B., 513; τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ, 513) added ¢ c. 115 A.D. dur- 


* McGiffert (4.4. 595 f.) ingeniously suggests Barnabas as the author of 
the anonymous original. Certainly, so far as we can judge, Paul, Barnabas, 
and Peter were the only three men who stood in the relationship indicated 
by 54-4 to Mark and Silvanus, Barnabas had been in touch with Paul and 
Asia Minor; he was a Hellenist, also, who would know the LXX. But 25-9 
need not have come from a Levite, and Barnabas had no special call to 
remain anonymous as an author. 

Τ Cp. Clemen’s adverse discussion (SX., 1905, 619-628). 

t 3!°*1 and 4%, the passages on the descent and mission to the underworld, 
are no doubt parenthetical ; but this does not involve their interpolation at a 
later date, as Cramer (ienwe bijdragen, vii. 4. 73 f., 126 f.) and A. Meyer 
(die moderne forschung tiber die Gesch. d. Ure., 1898, p. 43) propose (cp. 
Baljon, Theol. Stud., 1891, 429-431), followed recently by P. Schmidt 
(ZWT., 1907, 42f.), who assigns 3!% and 45 to various hands, the latter 
interpolation being made by one who either did not know of 3! or wished to 
emphasise a simpler and more orthodox idea of the descensus. In any case, 
the interpolation must have been inserted during the earlier part of the second 
century, as Origen found it in his text. Hart (#G7. v. 2f.) suggests that 4-5" 
1s a postscript intended for some of the community who were exposed to special 
trial ; but the a!lusions to persecution in 2-3 are sufficient to shew that the 
situation of the churches addressed was probably homogeneous in this respect. 


344 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


ing the Asiatic persecution under Trajan. This hypothesis is beset, however, 
with insuperable difficulties, literary and historical. It is improbable that 
any writing towards the close of the first century would be circulated as 
Petrine which explicitly avoided all mention of Jesus Christ (p. 27; by 
way of protest against Paul’s Christology!) and contented itself with 
religious conceptions which added nothing specifically Christian to the 
OT. piety. 

(4) Perdelwitz (Die Mystertenreligion und das Problem des I Petrus- 
briefes, 1911) regards 18-4" as a baptismal address, added to a homily for 
the general church of these neophytes, a church composed mainly of 
people who had once been members of a mystery-cult like that of Cybele. 
But even to this Wendland’s verdict applies: ‘‘hier, wie bei Col Jac II 
Petr Barnabas halte ich alle Zerstiickelungshypothesen fiir Spielerei” 
(HBNT. i. 2. 368). Perdelwitz’s proofs of a literary fusion in 1 Pt are less 
attractive than his evidence for a background of ‘ mystery-religion.’ 

Any theory of the writing thus turns out to involve a fairly specu- 
lative reconstruction of the historical data requisite for its setting. If, as 
Harnack insists, the alternative lies between some form of his own theory 
and a Petrine origin, the latter probably will carry the day. An early date 
is favoured by the absence of any heretical tendencies among the readers, 
the naive outlook on the imminent end (4175), and the exercise of charismatic 
gifts (4°); ἀποκάλυψις and ἀναστροφή are favourite words of the epistle, 
and by common consent it has the stamp of primitive Christianity more 
clearly than any other, not only of the writings in the Petrine New Testament 
(Gospel, Acts, Epp., Apoc.), but of the post-Pauline writings. The hypothesis 
of Silvanus’ share in its composition is not illegitimate, and since it meets 
the difficulty of the style as well as—in part—that of the religious outlook, 
while the problem of the ‘‘ persecution ”-allusions is not insuperable, there 
is some reason to accept the pastoral as the earliest literary memento of the 
primitive apostolic mission, a writing which voices not so much a personality 
asagreat cause. The fact that it is practically the sole witness of its class, 
is intelligible in the light of the mission itself. If tradition is to be credited, 
attention to literary composition was precluded, as a rule, not simply by 
natural inaptitude, but by the more pressing concerns of practical organisation 
and propaganda (cp. Eus. H. £. iii. 24. 3: τῆς τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας τὴν 
γνῶσιν ἐπὶ πᾶσαν κατήγγελλον τὴν οἰκουμένην, σπουδῆς τῆς wept τὸ λογογραφεῖν 
μικρὰν ποιούμενοι φροντίδα" καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἔπραττον ἅτε μείζονι καὶ ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον 
ἐξυπηρετούμενοι διακονίᾳ). 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDAS. 


LITERATURE. —(a) Editions— Luther (1523); Calvin (1551); R. 
Turnbull (London, 1606); Grotius, Asmotationes (1650); Manton (1658); 
J. C. Wolf (1735); Witsius (Basel, 1739); C. F. Schmid (Leipzig, 1768) ; 
Semler (Halle, 1784); Hasse (Jena, 1786); Hartmann (1793); L. Morus 
(1794); H. C; A. Haenlein (Erlangen, 1799) ; M. T. Laurman (Groningen, 
1818); Schneckenburger (Stuttgart, 1832); K. R. Jachmann (1838); C. A. 
Scharling (1841); de Wette (1847); R. Stier (Berlin, 1850); E. Arnauld 
(Recherches critiques sur [épitre de Jude, avec commentaire, 1851; Eng. tr 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDAS 345 


in ‘British and Foreign Evang. Review,’ July 1859)*; M. F. Rampf 
(Salzburg, 1854)"; John Lillie (New York, 1854); F. Gardiner (Boston, 
1856); Fronmiiller (Lange’s Bzbel-Werk*, Eng. tr., New York, 1867); 
Wiesinger (Olshausen’s Comm. 1862); Th. Schott (Erlangen, 1863); M. F. 
Roos (1864) ; B. Briickner*® (Leipzig, 1865) ; Ewald (1870); Bisping (1871) ; 
Alford 4(1871); Hofmann (1875); Huther (— Meyer‘, 1877, Eng. tr. 1881) ; 
Reuss (1878 ; Plumptre (Cambridge Bible, 1880) ; Lumby (Speaker's Comm. 
1881); Angus (Schaffs Comm. 1883); Keil (Leipzig, 1883); Salmond 
(Pulpit Comm. 1889); F. Spitta, Der 2 Brief des Petrus und der Brief des 
Judas (1885)* ; Burger? (Kurzgefasster Comm. 1895); Kihl (— Meyer ®, 
1897)*; G. Wandel, Der Brief Judas (Leipzig, 1898) ; von Soden® (HC, 
1899); Basil Gheorghiu (Czernowitz, 1901)*; C. Bigg? (JCC. 1902)*; 
Calmes (Paris, 1905); F. Weidner (New York, 1906); J. B. Mayor, Zhe 
Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter (1907)* ; G. Holl- 
mann (SV7Z, 1907); J. de Zwaan ( Tweede Petrus en Judas, 1909)* ; J. B. 
Mayor (ZG7, 1910); Windisch (HBN7. 1911); R. Knopf (— Meyer’, 
1912); Μ. R. James ((6 7. 1912); G. Wohlenberg (ZX. 1915). 

(6) Studies—Adam Sasbouth, /#z Epzst. Jude (1500); C. Sibelius, Zn 
divinam J. apostoli epistolam conciones sacre (Amsterdam, 1631); Antoine- 
Nicolas du Bois, Catholica Jud@ epistola . . . explicata (Paris, 1644); Dahl, 
De Authent. Epp. Petri post, et Jude (Rostock, 1807); J. D. Schulze, Der 
schrifistellerische Charakter κῃ. Werth des Petrus, Judas, und Jakobus 
(Leipzig, 1811); A. Jessieu, De authentia ep. Jud@ (1821); L. A. Arnauld’s 
Essai Critique sur Tauthent, de Jude (1835); Mayerhoff’s Petrinische 
Schriften, pp. 171-182 (1835)*; F. Brun’s Zssaz d’une introd. critique ἃ 
Pépitre de Jude (1842); E. Arnauld, Examen de l’ objection faite a l’épitre de 
J. au sujet de ses citat. apocryphes (1849) ; Ritschl (SX., 1861, pp. 103f., on 
the errorists); Schenkel (BZ. iii. 433 f.); Schwegler’s WZ. i. 518-522; 
Straatman (77., 1879, pp. 100f.); Venables (Smith’s DZ. i. 1164-1167) ; 
Sabatier (ZSR. vii. 476-478); Farrar, Zarly Days of Christianity (ch. xi.) ; 
A. Vieljeux, /ntrod. ἃ l’épitre de Jude (Montauban, 1894); Moffatt (HNV7. 
589f.); Cone (5.82. 2630-2632); Sieffert (PRE. ix. 589-592); Chase 
(DB. ii. 799-806)*; V. Ermoni (Vigouroux’ DA, iii. 1807f.); Zahn 
(Zinl. § 43); F. Maier (Bzblische Studien, xi. 1906, 1-2) * ; T. Barns, ‘The 
Epistle of Jude, A Study in the Marcosian Heresy’ (/7S., 1905, 391-411, 
answered by Mayor, zdzd. pp. 569-577); Maier (Zeztschrift fiir kath. Theo- 
logie, 1906, 693-729); Bacon (Z#8." xv. 537-538); Werdermann’s Dze 
Trrlehrer d. Judas u. 2 Petrusbriefe (1913). 


§ 1. Contents.—After the address (νν. 13) the writer explains 
that his reason for communicating with his friends (vv.2) is to 
warn them against a body of errorists within the church, a set of 
loud, arrogant, and poisonous characters,! whose doom (τοῦτο τὸ 
κρίμα, proleptic) is violently and vividly described as that of 
their older angelic and human prototypes (vv.>11) in vice. The 
writer especially recalls a prediction of their fate in the book of 


Δ The phrase τινες here (v.‘), as, ¢.g., in Gal 212 (see above, p. 85), has 
* quelque chose de méprisant’ (Arnauld). 


346 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


Enoch (vv.!2),* and urges his readers to adhere (vv.17-18 301) 
steadfastly to the primitive, apostolic tradition of the faith against 
plausible innovations (cp. ν.8 τῇ ἅπαξ rapadofetcn). With a brief 
doxology (vv.?45) the letter closes. Religious conservatism ¢ 
is its keynote. The pretensions of the ἀσεβεῖς are contrasted 
with the fixed and final Christian tradition (cp. 1 Jn 22% gif 55f-), 
Their very methods and fate are no new thing ; long ago (πάλαι) 
this had been foreseen by prophets and apostles alike. The 
writer disclaims originality even for his own warnings; all he 
requires to do is to remind orthodox Christians (vv.> 17) of the 
principles and prophecies of that faith which they already know 
(cp. 1 Jn 270-21), plea for orthodoxy which is curiously bound 
up with belief in several superstitions drawn from what the author 
of Titus (114) would have sharply denounced as ‘ Jewish myths.’ 


Conservatism involves retrospect, and the epistle looks back upon the 
apostolic age as (vv.*17)¢ distant and authoritative. These allusions are 
not to be explained away as if they meant no more than that the apostles were 
scattered (and therefore out of reach), or that the primitive Palestinian 
apostles alone are conceived of as dead. Neither does the ἔλεγον ὑμῖν 
necessarily imply that the readers had at one time been hearers of the 
apostles. On the other hand, it is a forced interpretation of v.° which finds 
in it an allusion to the Lord’s punishment of unbelieving Israel at the fall 
of Jerusalem (so, ¢.g., Hofmann, Zahn); for, apart from other reasons 
(cp. F. Maier’s essay in BZ., 1904, 377-397), τὸ δεύτερον refers not to two 
separate events, but to a stage later than the σώσας (cp. 1 Co το", He 3130), 
and it would be irregular to introduce a symbolic modern (contrast πάλαι, 
v.4) example in the midst of historical ones. The order of *7 is no doubt 
unchronological, but the anticlimax is not bettered by shifting v.° into the 
NT period. The reverse attempt (e.g. Credner, Rampf, Bleek, Gutjahr) to 
argue from J.’s silence that he must have written prior to the disaster of 
A.D. 70, is as unconvincing here as in the case of Hebrews. It is doubtful if 
the destruction of Jerusalem would have seemed to him an instance of divine 


* On the Enochic background of the epistle, cp. Lods, Le /:vre d’Hénoch 
(pp. 98-100), M. R. James (pp. xlif.), and Chase (DZ. ii. 801-802). 

t ‘‘Jude’s language about the Faith is highly dogmatic, highly orthodox, 
highly zealous. His tone is that of a bishop of the fourth century” (Bigg, 
p. 325). 

t While πίστις by itself was used objectively by Paul now and then (cp. 
Gal 1%, Phil 17”, cp. Ac 67), the context and the form of v.8 (¢he faith once for 
all delivered, not to you, but fo the saznts), taken with v." (your most holy 
faith), show unmistakably the sub-apostolic atmosphere (cp. e.g. Polykarp, 
who speaks of being ‘built up els τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίστιν [iii. 2, iv. 2]). 
But there is no allusion to any formula of faith transmitted to the disciples, as 
A. Seeberg contends (Der Katechismus d. Urchristenhett, 1903, pp. 195-196) ; 
πίστις is simply the body of Christian belief. 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDAS 347 


judgment on sceptical antinomianism, and in any case his choice of instances 
is dictated by special motives, e.g. the desire to adduce the prototypes of error 
in ancient prophecy, particularly from apocalyptic sources. 


§ 2. Characteristics.—The writer and his circle are at home 
within the (pp. 32f.) literature and legends * of Judaism, as the 
allusions to the book of Enoch and (vv.® 16) the Assumption of 
Moses (cp. R. H. Charles, Assumption of Moses, pp. 105 f.) show ; 
but this is no clue to the epistle’s date or m/ieu, since both were 
written by the time of Jesus, and since the former was widely 
read and honoured in early Christianity, if we may judge from the 
allusions and citations of the first and second centuries (cp. F. 
Martin, Le livre d’ Hénoch, 1906, pp. cxiif.; Lawlor in Journal of 
Philology, 1897, 164-225). The latter ‘represents that tendency 
in Jewish thought which was most nearly allied to primitive 
Christianity” (Burkitt, DZ. iii. 449), and its opposition to the 
antinomian tendencies of the Sadducees may have recommended 
it to J. in view of his contemporary errorists. His familiarity 
with apocalyptic literature is probably responsible for the οὗτοί 
eiow rubric, cp. vv.®) 10. 12.16.19 ἃ favourite expression with such 
writers (cp. eg. Zec 1%, Apoc 71 etc., En 463, Slav. En 78 
etc.), as well as for the Hebraistic colouring of his periods.t 
“ Die ganze Redeweise ist uber aus lebhaft und gedrangt, plastisch 
und konkret, mit einem Wort: echt orientalisch” (F. Maier, 
p. 168). The fondness for triple grouping (vv.? * 5-7. 8 111. 23. 260) 
is more outstanding than the three instances where a fivefold 
arrangement (vv.!?13. 16-25) can be observed, and there is a 
certain balance and even rhythm of structure (cp. Cladder in 
JTS., 1904, 598-603) visible in the antithetical poise of various 
sentences and paragraphs, which smacks of the older Jewish 
writings. These features, however, do not stamp the work as 
late or early. The epistle shares with Luke’s writings in the NT 
collection, words like ἀγαλλίασις (He 19 LXX), ἄλογος, the 
Hellenistic χάριτα for χάριν (v.4=Ac 2427 25°), ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι 
(Ac 217 LXX), and the dative in v.4=Lk 183!: with Hebrews, t 


*On the Michael-myth, see J. T. Marshall (27. xi. 390-391) and 
Lueken’s Erzengel Michael (1898), with Cheyne’s Bzb/e Problems (226f.). 

+ That he was a Jewish Christian does not necessarily follow, much less 
that his audience were Jewish Christians (Hoennicke, /C. 92-93), though 
the former inference is plausible on broader grounds. 

t+ Cp. the collocation of three participles with a finite vb, (v.2= 
He 12!*), 


348 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


ἀντιλογία, ζόφος, μεγαλωσύνη ; and with Paul one or two terms, 
such as ἀΐδιος, κυριότης, οἰκητήριον, and προγράφειν, besides ἅγιοι 
and κλητούί. But these are either too casual or too diverse in 
meaning to prove any literary relationship. Apart from the 
allusion in v.!® to language which the later Gnostics had adopted 
from Paul (cp. 1 Co 214), and the resemblances of the address 
(cp. 1 Th 14, 2 Th 218) and the doxology (v.24=Ro 1675-27, 
see above, p. 135), there is little or nothing to indicate any use 
or even reminiscences of the genuine Pauline correspondence. 
The impression of a similarity of atmosphere between the epistle 
and the Pauline pastorals is heightened, however, by a series 
of coincidences in thought and expression (611: τ 2 Ti 38, the 
use of πίστις and of θέος σωτήρ), particularly in v.!7 which 
implies the circulation of a prophecy such as has been pre- 
served in these pastorals. It is therefore highly probable that 
the latter were known to this writer, though there is no clear 
evidence that he used them. 

§ 3. Relation to 2 Peter.—Special literature: E. A. Richter, 
De origine epist. P. posterioris ex epist. Jude repetenda (1810); 
E. Moutier, Za seconde épitre de Pierre et celle de Jude (Strassburg, 
1829), Mayerhoff’s Linlettung in die petrinischen Schriften (1835), 
pp. 171-182; B. Weiss (SX., 1866, 256f.); Ὁ: Michael in 
Festschrift fir Ficke (Leipzig, 1897); H. Schwienhorst, Das 
Verhdltniss des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbrief untersucht 
(Minster, 1904); A. Maier (7'Q., 1905, 547-580); J. B. Mayor 
in LGT. v. 303-317. 

The similarities between Judas and 2 P. are not altogether 
confined to *& of the former and the second chapter of the 
latter (epi ei. Jud ®=2 P 27, Jud δ =2 P3") Jud “= 25pm 
Jud 2-3 =2 P 34% Jud “*=2 P 3", Jud *=2 P 318), but in that 
chapter they mount up to an exceptional height, as may be seen 
from the following summary : 


Jupas 


(*) For certain men have slipped in 
by stealth (παρεισέδυσαν), those who 
were long ago (πάλ αι) predestined 
(εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα) to this dvom 
—impious men, perverting our God’s 
grace into ἀσέλγειαν, and denying 


2P2 


(1) False teachers, men who shall 
stealthily introduce (παρεισάξουσι) 
destructive heresies . . . denying 
the Master who bought them (τὸν 
ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνού- 
μενοι). ἢ 


* The contrast of ἀγοράσαντα is with the extortionate demands of the 
errorists for remuneration (2%, cp. Tit 1" ; Iren, i. 13. 3; Eus. H. Ε΄ v. 18. 2) 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDAS 


the only Master and our Lord Jesus 
Christ (kal τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ 
κύριον ἡμῶν "I, X. ἀρνούμενοι). 

(8) And angels which kept not their 
office but abandoned their own habit- 
ation, he has kept under the nether 
blackness in fetters everlasting 
(δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν) 
for the judgment (εἰς κρίσιν) of the 
great day. 

(7) Even as* Sodom and Gomorrha, 
with the surrounding cities... are 
exhibited as a warning (δεῖγμα), 
undergoing the penalty of fire eternal. 

(8) These men f with their sensual 
dreams pollute the flesh (σάρκα μιαί- 
vovo.v), contemn the Lordship (κυριό- 
τητα ἀθετοῦσιν), and abuse Majesties 
(δόξας βλασφημοῦσιυ»). 


(2) Now when Michael the arch- 
angel was disputing with the devil in 
controversy over the body of Moses, 
he dared not (οὐκ ἐτολμήσεν) bring 
an abusive accusation against him 
(κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημία). 


(°) But these men heap abuse on 
whatever they are ignorant of (οὗτοι 
δὲ, ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν), 


349 


(7) And many still follow their 
ἀσελγείας 

(5) οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ. 

(Ὁ) God spared not angels when 
they sinned, but thrusting them down 
to Tartarus, to pits of nether black- 
ness (σειροῖς ζόφου), delivered them to 
be kept for judgment (παρέδωκεν els 
κρίσιν rnpovpévous). 


(6) Reducing the cities of Sodom 
and Gomorrha to ashes . . . making 
an example of them (ὑπόδειγμα τε- 
θεικώς). 

(19) Those who walk after the flesh 
in the lust of pollution (ὁπίσω σαρκὸς 
[=Jud 7 ὁπίσω σαρκὸς] ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ 
μιασμοῦ), and despise the Lordship 
(xuptérnros). Daring (τολμηταί, cp. 
Jud 5), . .. they tremble not when 
they abuse Majesties (δόξας βλασφη- 
μοῦντεΞ5). 


(11) Whereas angels , . .t 


do not bring an abusive accusation 
against them (φέρουσιν βλάσφημον 
κρίσιν). 

(3) But these men, like irrational 
brutes (οὗτοι δὲ, ὡς ἄλογα ζῶα) by 
nature born (φυσικὰ) for capture and 


* The region of the Dead Sea, with its volcanic features, is associated in 


En 17° with the subterranean burning of the fallen angels. 


In 2 P. the 


deluge is inserted between the fall of the angels and the destruction of Sodom 
and Gomorrha (cp. 3°), whereas Cain and Korah fall out. By the omission 
of the apostasy of the Israelites, 2 P. straightens out the chronology of Jud. 
On the other hand, 2 P.’s insertion of God’s rescuing mercy (25: ®), when 
contrasted with Jud 2}, shows that the situation has become more serious, 
2 P.’s start with the fallen angels is motived by the fact that they were the 
instructors of mankind in malpractices, according to Jewish tradition (cp. En. 
ix. 5-6, x. 7, etc.), and consequently the natural prototype of false teachers 
(2't); his insertion anticipates the milder thought of 3%, and is suggested by 
the allusion of 1 P 3% to Noah. J.’s reference to the sin of the angels in 
connection with Sodom echoes the tradition preserved in Test. Napth. iii. 

+ Peter’s generalising version is less clear than J.’s; indeed, were it not 
for the latter, it would be fair to call it ‘‘ the most enigmatical sentence in the 
N.T.” (Alford). 


350 


and whatever they do understand by 
nature (φυσικῶς), like the irrational 
brutes (ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα), through 
that are they corrupted (φθείρονται). 


(1) They went the road of (τῇ ὁδῷ) 
Kain, rushed headlong for wages 
(μισθοῦν in the error of Balaam. 


(2) These men are the sunken 
rocks (σπιλάδες) in your love-feasts 
(ἐν rats ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν), feasting with 
you (συνευωχούμενοι). 

(22-18) Rainless clouds (νεφέλαι 
ἄνυδροι), swept along by winds... 
for whom the nether blackness of 
darkness has been for ever reserved 
(ols ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους els αἰῶνα 
τετήρηται). 

(8) Their mouth speaks extrava- 
gantly (ὑπέρογκα). 

(27) Remember the words (μνήσθητε 
τῶν ῥημάτων) spoken beforehand by 
the apostles of our Lord Jesus (τῶν 
προειρημένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων). 


(38) how they told you: at the end 
of the time (ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τοῦ χρόνου) 
there shall be (ἔσονται, ν.]. ἐλεύσονται) 
scoffers (ἐμπαῖκται), walking after 
their own impious lusts (κατὰ τὰς 
ἑωυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι 
ἀσεβειῶν). 


τῶν 


HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


corruption (φθοράν), uttering abuse 
about things they are ignorant of (ἐν 
ols ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες), shall 
also perish in their corruption (ἐν τῇ 
φθορᾷ αὐτῶν φθαρήσονται). 

(5) They followed the road (τῇ 
ὁδῷ) of Balaam the son of Bosor,* 
who loved the wages (μισθόν) of mal- 
practice. 

(18) Spots and blots (amido καὶ 
μῶμοι) . .. ἐν ταῖς dmdrast (ν.]. 
dydrats) αὐτῶν... feasting with 
you (συνευωχούμενοι ὑμῖν). 

(1 These men are _ waterless 
fountains (πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι) and mists 
driven by a squall . . . for whom the 
nether blackness of darkness has been 
reserved (ols ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους els 
αἰῶνα τετήρηται). 

(8) Uttering futile extravagances 
(ὑπέρογκα). 

(3?) Remember the words spoken 
beforehand (μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρη- 
μένων) by the holy prophets and the 
commandment of the apostles sent 
you from the Lord and Saviour ; ¢ 

3° knowing this first of all, that in 
the last days (ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν) 
scoffers (ἐμπαῖκται) shall come (ἐλεύ- 
σονται) scofing, walking after their 
own lusts (κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας 
αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι). 


These phenomena imply either (a) the common use of some earlier docu- 


ment, or (6) a literary relationship between the two epistles. 


The former 


theory fails to explain anything except the legendary elements, which can 
satisfactorily be accounted for, especially since the discovery of the book of 
Enoch, without conjecturing (with older critics like Herder and Hasse) 
some Persian original, or§ some Aramaic document containing Noachic and 


* Bosor is a blunder for Beor (cp. ἐξ B), unless, with A. Sanda (&Z., 
1904, 188f.), it is to be taken geographically. 

+ For this use of ἀπάτη, see Nigeli’s Der Wortschdtz d. Paulus, p. 15. 

1 Spitta and Baljon omit καὶ τῆς. . . σωτῆρος as a gloss; Blass inserts 
διὰ between τῆς and τῶν (as in the title of the Didaché). 

§ Cp. Sherlock’s Dissertation concerning the Authority of the Second Epistle 
of Peter; Kaiser’s Commentarius, quo lingue aramaice usus ad judicanda et 
interpretanda plure N.T. loca. . . defenditur (1831), pp. 77f., and Lumby 
in Exp. iv. 461. 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDAS 351 


Enochic prophecies upon the deluge, or, finally, a Jewish or Jewish Christian 
*Strafpredigt.’* The alternative hypothesis (4) is rather to be accepted in 
the form of a dependence of 2 P. upon Judas (so most critics, especially 
Credner, Alford, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Abbott, Weiss, Baljon, 
James, Chase, F. Maier, Jiilicher, Salmon, Mayor, and Belser, as against 
Luther’s opinion, which was supported by Dietlein, Lumby, Mansel, Hof- 
mann, Plummer, Spitta, Zahn, Wohlenberg, and Bigg). (i.) It is more likely 
that a later writer should incorporate practically the bulk of a brief note like 
that of Judas, than that the author of the latter should select only the 
middle portion of 2 Pet. To this it is not enough to reply that he chose only 
the section which suited his purpose, for if his purpose (as Spitta urges) was 
to emphasise the apostolic warnings against libertines, be would have made it 
more clear that he was using Peter’s zps7ss¢ma werba, and in any case a section 
like that of 3** would have been as apt to his aim. Furthermore (ii.) Judas 
has the notes of an original writer. The style is sententious, forcible, and 
terse, as compared with the cloudy and rhetorical language of 2 P. (cp. 
Jud ‘ with 2 P 2°, Jud ὁ with 2 P 24, Jud’ with 2 P 25, Jud® with 2 P 219, Jud® 
with 2 P 2", Jud with 2 P 213); thus—to quote one instance—the more 
popular σπουδὴν παρεισφέρειν of the later writer (15) is a relapse from the correct 
σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι of Jud 3. Again, (iii.) 2 P. has exaggerated the habit of 
iteration which crops up now and again in Jud. (cp. τηρεῖν and ζόφος in ® 18 
κρίσις in δ: 9. 15, and βλασῴφημ. in 819, also 16 and 18) despite the latter’s 
skill in devising synonyms. In the later writer, partly owing to an imitation 
of 1 P., where this literary trait occasionally recurs (cp. σωτηρία in 19°; κακο- 
ποιός, 21% 14; ἀγαθοπ., 21415 20), the iteration of insignificant terms becomes 
almost wearisome (cp. ἐπιχορηγεῖν, 1° 11 ; ἐνεχθ., 117-18 ; ἀποφεύγειν, 1% *8- 18. 20, 
προφητεία, 17-21; φθέγγεσθαι, 21% 18. dered fev, 215 8; μισθὸς ἀδικίας, 21% 15, 
στοιχεῖα καυσούμενα, 3'* 12 etc. etc.). Finally, (iv.) at several points the 
language of 2 P. is only intelligible from that of Judas; e.g. the general- 
ised allusion to angels in 2 P 21°! becomes clear from Jud 3 with its specific 
reference to Michael. The haste and vehemence of Judas the zealot lead 
him now and then into a certain confused tone of denunciation, which is 
at once softened and straightened out in the later epistle. 2 P. has not the 
urgency which dictated the composition of Judas; it is more derivative than 
the latter. ‘‘The impression which they leave on my mind is that in J. we 
have the first thought, in P. the second thought; that we can generally 
see a reason why P. ahould have altered J., but very rarely a reason why 
what we read in P. should have been altered to what we find in J. Ρ, is more 
reflective, J. more spontaneous” (Mayor, p. xxv). ‘‘Es ist eine absurde 
Vorstellung, dass der kleine, an Vorstellungen viel reichere Jud aus einzelnen, 
da und dort herausgerissenen, iiber eine gréssere Flache zerstreuten, an sich 
meist ganz nebensdchlichen, fast armseligen Wortern und Satzen des grossen 
2 Petr zusammengestoppelt ist” (Maier, Der /udasbrief, 107-108). ““ Begrei- 
flich ist, dass ein Mann, der seinen Lesern noch mehr zu sagen hatte, den 
Inhalt des Judasbriefes in seinem grésseren Briefe verarbeitete ; dass aber 
Judas, wenn er vor den von Petrus geschilderten Irrlehrern warnen will, 
statt sich ausdriicklich auf diese grosse Autoritat zu berufen, einfach ein Stiick 


* Cp. Heinrici, Ure, 112, and Lit. Charakter d. NT Schriften, 78-79. 


252 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


des Petrusbriefes neu herausgibt unter seinem Namen, ist undenkbar” (Haupt 
in SX., 1904, 149). 

§ 4. Literary connections.—While the earliest trace of the 
epistle is in 2 Pet., its brevity, limited circulation, and lack of 
significant ideas prevented it from being used by other writers in 
the second century; almost the only document which presents 
any resemblance to it is the Didaché, where 27 (οὐ μισήσεις πάντα 
ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ ods μὲν ἐλέγξεις, περὶ δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, ovs δὲ 
ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου) recalls the similar triple sentence 
of Jud 2223 (καὶ ots μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, ods δὲ σώζετε 
... ods δὲ ἐλεᾶτε), Ἐ whilst 7.5 assertion that the errorists’ 
κυριότητα ἀθετοῦσιν (v.8) is explained by the counsel of Did. 41 
(τιμήσεις avtov—i.e. him who speaks the word of God—ds 
Κύριον" ὅθεν yap 4 κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεῖ Κύριός ἐστιν) The 
connection between murmuring and blasphemy is not striking 
enough to justify stress being laid (as, e.g., by Spitta, 534-535, 
and F. Maier, p. 65) on 3°* as a possible instance of the use of 
Jud 5:10. and even were the text of Jud 2223 (cp. WH. ii. 106 f.) 
and of Did 27 more certain than it is, it would be imprudent to 
base any conclusions of literary filiation upon so lonely and 
precarious a piece of evidence. ‘On other grounds it seems 
likely that the two documents had their origin within the same 
circle of Christian thought, and it is conceivable that parts of the 
Didaché are w/timately the work of the author of the epistle” 
(Chase, 795). Be this as it may, the Didaché on the whole fails 
to furnish any terminus ad quem for Judas, and still less do 
Barnabas (210 49, against Jud 8), 2 Clem. (20*=Jud °, cp. ΖΑ. 
129), and Hermas (Sim. v. 7. 2=Jud 8, Sim. ix. 9. 13 against 
Jud 531), though the coincidence between Mart. Polyk. (address ἔλεος 
καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη. . . πληθυνθείη) = Jud 3 (ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνῃ 
καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη) is remarkable enough (see above, p. 336). 

By the end of the second century the homily was accepted as canonical 
and apostolic in Alexandria (Clement, Origen), Africa (Tertullian), and Rome 
(Murat. Canon); but the very terms and context in which it is mentioned 


in the Mur. Canon and even in Origen (27); Matt. τ, xvii. 30) indicate that 
its reception was far from being unanimous ; f and this is corroborated by its 


* A case for the omission (with C* Syr. hl.) of ods δὲ ἐλεᾶτε is presented 
by R. A. Falconer (Zxf.° iv. 200-207) ; see, further, Souter (GX. 61). 

+ Besides, Tertullian not only mistakes J. for an apostle, but is chiefly 
interested in his epistle because it guarantees the authority of the book of 
Enoch (de cultu fem. i. 3); while Clem, Alex.’s opinion is weakened by the 
fact that he attributes Hebrews to Paul. 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDAS 353 


absence subsequently from the writings of the Antioch school and the Syriac 
vulgate. The suspicions (Eus. 47. 25. ii. 23. 25) which thus hindered its 
entrance into certain circles of the church, as one of the ἀντιλεγόμενα, were 
due not to critical scruples so much as to the hesitation aroused by the source 
and character of its apocryphal citations (so Jerome, ae utr. tllustr. cx.). 
Its unpopularity in the African churches, to judge from Cyprian’s lack of 
reference to it and from other data, and its failuse te win acceptance in the 
school of Antioch, rendered its ecclesiastical career as precarious and 
cLequered as that of several of the other ‘catholic epistles.” Its disrepute in 
si Dy quarters, particularly throughout the West, was only partially counter- 
valanced by the fact that Clement of Alexandria (in his Hy/ofofosets, cp. 
Westcott’s Canon, pp. 355f.) and Didymus of the same city (in the fourth 
¢antury) wrote comments on it, the latter with especial regard to its 
compromising employment of apocryphal writings. 


§ 5. Odject—The writer is not interested in the ἀσεβεῖς, as 
the apologists of the second century are in the principles of the 
errorists whom they controvert. He attempts no refutation of 
their theories, nor does he go into any detail in exposing their 
aberrations. He is a plain, honest leader of the church, who 
knows when round indignation is more telling than argument. 
His interest is purely practical. Alarmed at the possibility of his 
friends being contaminated by these intruders, he writes this 
brief, forcible warning, full of what Origen called ἐρρωμένοι λόγοι. 
It denounces* rather than describes the objects of its attack, 
and there is a note of exaggerated severity in it, ‘a certain hasti- 
ness and tendency to take things at the worst’ (Bigg). When 
the news of the movement’s spread reached him (v.3), he was in 
the act of composing an epistle or treatise for his friends περὶ τῆς 
κοινῆς σωτηρίας : this he laid aside at once in order to lose no 
time in putting them on their guard. His practical object, 
together with the fact that the readers were well acquainted with 
the errorists, naturally gave no occasion for a minute transcript 
of the latter’s aims; one or two hints emerge which indicate 
their general physiognomy, but these glimpses are neither un- 
ambiguous nor coherent, 2.6. they do not point to any one of the 
regular gnostic circles of which we have any knowledge. The 
note of dualism (v.* τὸν μόνον δεσπότην ἀρνοῦμενοι, v.25 μόνῳ θεῷ) ἢ 
was common to most Gnostics, including, of course, the Carpo- 
kratians (so for Judas, Grotius and Mangold, Zin/. 723f., with 


***To a modern reader it is curious rather than edifying, with the 
exception of the beginning and end” (Mayor, p. cli). 

{ The phrase is not so much liturgical as a polemical reference to gnestic 
theosophies (cp. Jn 5“ 17%, and E. A. Abbott’s Diat., 1895, 2664). 


23 


354 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


Schenkel, Christusbild, 161f.; Cone, Gospel and its Earliest 
Interpretations, 338-341 ; and Pfleiderer, Ure. iv. 251 f.) and the 
Cainites (ν.11), who (according to Irenzus, i. 31. 1) claimed 
kinship with the Sodomites (ν.7) and Korah (v."); though the 
allusion to Cain, in the light of 1%", seems to voice the Jewish 
tradition, as old as Philo (cp. Siegfried’s Phzlo, pp. 150f.), that 
Cain was the first sceptic, who denied any future rewards for 
the good or punishment for the wicked (Targ. Jerus. on Gn 47). 
Again, the abuse of love-feasts (v.12), flattery of the rich (v.!®), 
and antinomian tendencies, are common to these errorists and 
to the followers of Marcus in Asia Minor, ¢. A.D. 160 (Iren. i. 
13-21); but Judas never alludes to the women over whom 
Marcus exercised extraordinary power, and the above traits are 
not peculiar to the Marcosians. The combination of denying 
Christ (v.*) with immorality would harmonise either with Tit 116 
or with the Nikolaitans * (Apoc 26: 1 cp. 218 οὐκ ἠρνήσω τὴν πίστιν 
pov). There is no evidence to connect it- with any theoretical 
error, such as that of Cerinthus (cp. 1 Jn 222), on the person of 
Christ, but the libertine conduct of J.’s errorists was plainly 
justified in their own opinion by their views (cp. v.%); just as the 
Carpokratians (¢. A.D. 140), whose heresy Clem. Alex. (Strom. iii. 
2. 6-10) found prophetically described in this epistle, advocated 
promiscuous sexual indulgence on the ground that the sexual 
impulse was a God-given instinct. Cain and Korah (v.!!) were 
honoured by the Ophites, of whom the Cainites were an offshoot, 
and the adherents of Simon Magus and of Carpokrates are said 
by Irenzeus (i. 25. 1) to have scoffed at the angels who were 
responsible for the creation. 

Whoever they were, they were charged by Judas with sodomy 
(v.7) and sexual abuses (v.!%),+ as well as with covetousness— 


*So Thiersch, Ewald, Schott, Huther, Wiesinger, Mansel, Sieffert, 
Bartlet, and recently Knopf (VZ. 320-322), who argues that J.’s errorists not 
only were libertines and spiritualists like the N., but shared the same attitude 
towards the devil, holding that the true Christian could scoff at his power and 
safely practise immorality. This involves the identification of the angelic 
powers in v.® with evil spirits (so, ¢.g., Weiss and Schott). A cognate view 
(E. P. Gould, W77%. pp. 157-158) makes J. point to the summary fate of 
the wicked angels as a proof that angels in general need not be reviled, and 
that the errorists had better not justify their sensual indulgence by appealing 
‘more or less cynically to’ the ‘ roving propensities’ of these aerial beings. 

+ For which the ἀγάπαι (v.!*) would give opportunity to the unscrupulous, 
as in the case, ¢.g., of the Carpokratians, This lust, combined with insub- 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDAS 355 


the latter (v.17, v.12 ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες, v.16 ὠφελείας χάρινὴ 
pointing to a familiar type of the prophet or mystagogue, who 
traded on the generosity and credulity of his dupes. On being 
checked by the authorities of the churches, they became re- 
bellious and discontented (8 110. 163) like Korah; while, like 
Balaam (v.!), they were pseudo-prophets (this is the force of 
ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι, v.°) as well as selfish. Furthermore, they made 
loud pretensions (v.1%, v.16 τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα), 
evidently on the score of superiority to the rank and file of 
ordinary Christians. Like most of the Gnostics, they appear to 
have called themselves πνευματικοί, in contrast to the inferior 
ψυχικοί of the church (this is the point of J.’s retort in v.}%) ; 
the exclusiveness (vv.!% 22) and lack of brotherly love (v.12 νεφέλαι 
ἄνυδροι, δένδρα ἄκαρπα), which this ostentation developed, are a 
constant source of reproach in the writings of this period (cp. 
1 John, Ignatius). Such traits belong to the incipient phases of 
some local, possibly syncretistic, development of libertinism upon 
gnostic lines,* rather than to any definite school; they cannot 
be fairly explained (Spitta, 503 f., after Neander) as natural to 
some ultra-Paulinists, or to errorists of a purely practical bent, 
resembling those attacked by Paul at Corinth or Colossz, or to 
Jewish Christian heretics (so, e.g., Credner and Salmon). 

§ 6. Period and authorshi~.—In view of Eph 2” 35 and 
Apoc 18% 2114, the allusion to the apostles in v.!” would not 
necessarily fix the ¢exminus a quo for the epistle beyond the last 
quarter of the first century; but neither would the evidence 
just adduced from the incipient gnostic tendencies which it 
controverts, converge upon a date for its composition in the 
early decades of the second century. If there is an allusion in 
ver. 17 to 2 Ti 31: and x Ti 41", it would be hard (cp. Jacoby, 
WT LEthik, 455 f.) to attribute the authorship either (a) to Judas, 


ordination, is the point made by J. (v.®) in comparing the errorists to the 
fallen angels (cp. Justin, Afo/. ii. 5; Jub iv. 15 f.), who in Jewish legend (cp. 
Volz, Jud. Eschatologie, pp. 273 f., and Bousset, die Religion des Judentums, 
326f., for the evidence from Enoch, etc.) were guilty of both these sins. 

*So WHarnack (early representatives of the Archontikoj, Kainites, 
Nikolaitans, etc.) and Belser: ‘‘man wird sonach in diesen ‘ Gottlosen’ 
Anhinger des Simon Magus, eines Menander und Nikolaus (Iren. adv. haer. 
i. 23; Tert. de anima, 50; Apoc 2® 15) erblicken diirfen ; Gesinnungsgenossen 
des Thebutis und Dositheus, von welchen ersterer zunichst ein Schisma 
veranlasste und dasselbe bald zur Hiresie weiterbildete (Eus. 4. 45. iv. 22)” 
(Zin/. 661-662). 


356 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


the brother of James (Mk 68, Mt 1355), who is supposed (Clem. 
Alex.) to have described himself as the servant, not the brother, 
of the Lord, owing to reverent humility (so the large majority of 
edd.) ; or (ὁ) to the apostolic * Judas of Lk 61%, Ac 115 (so, 6.9.» 
Bertholdt, Schneckenburger, Hofmann, Lange, Keil, Belser, 
Wordsworth); or (ὃ even to Judas Barsabas (Ac 15%), 
the prominent prophet of the Jerusalem-church (so Schott, 
Welcker, Dr. John Lightfoot, Words, viii. 38-39 ; Selwyn, and 
Plumptre). (ὁ) is weakened by the dubiety clinging to ᾿Ιούδας 
Ἰακώβου (which may mean ‘son of James’ rather than 
‘brother’), and like (a) is handicapped by the difficulty of 
seeing how Judas could have lived long enough to write 
the epistle. The well-known story about the grandsons of 
Judas, the brother of James of Jerusalem, being brought before 
Domitian, suggests that the grandfather could hardly have sur- 
vived till ¢c. aD. 85. Apart from this, it must be admitted, a fair 
case can be made out for his authorship, and many scholars find 
themselves able to read the allusions to the errorists in such a 
way as to place them in the third quarter of the first century, 
thus interpreting the title literally.t Renan (iii. ch. x.) is alone 
in relegating it to c A.D. 54 as a covert and rancorous pamphlet 
against Paul, but a date within the seventh decade of the first 
century (Arnauld, Weiss) is upheld by many scholars, ¢.g. 60-64 
(Bigg), 63f. (Bisping, F. Maier, Gheorghiu), 64-66 (Rampf, 
Henkel, Schafer, pp. 314f.; Gutjahr, Belser, Kaulen, Trenkle), 
or predominantly 66f. (Reithmayr, Valroger, Fronmiiller, 
Eichhorn, Bleek, Schulze, Weiss, Wandel, Burger, Arnauld, 
Guericke, Stier, Langen, Salmond in Pulpit Commentary; 
Selwyn, Zhe Christian Prophets, pp. 146f. etc.). Others, like 
Kihl (65-80), fix it somewhat later, e¢.g., in the eighth decade, so 
Zahn and Wohlenberg (70-75), Barth (after 70), Mayor, Sieffert 


* Tertullian and Origen (Lat.) both make the author an apostle; the 
similar assertion of the Decretum Gelasianum (see above, p. 17) only points 
to N. Italy or Gaul as the provenance of that document (/7S. xiv. 471). 
The writer himself does not claim to be one of the apostles, and indeed he 
dissociates himself from them. 

+ If Ἰησοῦς (A B etc., cp. WH. ii. 106; Az. 2632) is read (so, 4.9.» 
Alford and Zwaan) in v.° instead of κύριος, the difficulty of supposing that a 
brother of Jesus could have written thus (or, for the matter of that, have 
meant Jesus by ὁ κύριος), is well-nigh insuperable. Even Paul used ὁ Χριστός 
(1 Co τοῦ). Nor would it ease matters to take ’Ingods as equivalent to Joshua 
(E. E. Kellett, £7. xv. 381). 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDAS 357 


(70-80), and Bartlet, 44. 344-351; ¢. a.D. 80, favoured by 
Credner, Reuss, Lumby, Schott (80-90), Ewald, Hofmann, Spitta, 
Keil, Knopf, Werdermann, and von Soden.* The latter period 
has most in its favour, if the manifesto could be connected with 
the Judas of the early church. Otherwise, criticism is pushed 
into the first quarter of the second century (so, ¢.g., Harnack, 
McGiffert, Julicher, Hollmann), slightly later by Schenkel (a.p. 
130-140) and Straatman (pp. ro2f.), and later still by Volkmar, 
Mangold, Davidson, Pfleiderer, N. Schmidt in Zhe Prophet of 
Vazareth, p. 192 (after A.D. 150), and Barns (4. A.D. 160), as 
formerly by Semler (A.D. 150-200). 


On any form of the latter hypothesis, some explanation of the title (᾿ Ἰούδας 
"I. X. δοῦλος, ἀδελφὸς 5é’laxwBov) becomes imperative. (a) The main objection 
to the pseudonym-hypothesis (Schwegler, Pfleiderer, Reuss, etc.), which makes 
the writer take the brother of Jesus as his mouthpiece, is that J. was far from 
important enough, that he would probably have been made an apostle (as 
by Tertullian afterwards), and that no attempt is made to develop his 
personality, as would have been natural under the circumstances.t (4) More 
plausibly Harnack (ACZ, i. 1, pp. 465f.) would modify this by conjecturing 
that some unknown Judast of the second century (A.D. 100-130) wrote the 
homily against a contemporary phase of Syro-Palestinian gnosticism, and that 
the words ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου were added later (A.D. 150-180) when it 
became desirable, in the light of the rampant gnosticism of the age, to 
guarantee the writing’s authority. Such a theory (so McGiffert, 44. 585- 
588 ; Bacon, Barns) in one form or another at once does some justice to the 
contents of the writing, which does not appear to come from one who either 
belonged to or survived the first generation, and to the title itself; it would 
not be difficult for a second-century scribe or editor, finding the words ’Iovdas 
"I. X. δοῦλος at the head of an earlier (‘not far from A.D. 90, Bacon, p. 170) 
manifesto against antinomian errorists, to amplify them with ἀδελφὸς δὲ 
᾿Ιακώβου, supposing or wishing it to be supposed that the writer was the 
brother of the notable James of Jerusalem, whose rigid attitude towards pagan 


* ¢.¢. in his commentary. The hurried and superficial paragraph at the 
close of his Zxtroduction (pp. 470-472) seems to abandon both the authorship 
of Judas and the first century date, 

f Jiilicher (2 211. p. 200) now thinks that the author belonged to a circle 
where James was held in honour, but that he chose Judas as his pseudonym 
because he perhaps outlived the other Palestinian apostles, and therefore was a 
suitable mouthpiece for warnings against the rising peril. 

t Grotius thought of Judas, a Jewish Christian bishop of Jerusalem in the 
second century, as the actual author; but ἀδελφὸς δὲ ᾿Ιακώβου could hardly 
be taken as an episcopal Jerusalemite title, and the very personality of this 
Judas is in dispute (cp. Zahn’s Forschungen, vi. 293 f., and Turner, /7S. 
i. 529f., against Schlatter, 7U. xii. 25f., 8.7. xii. 3, 1898, ‘die Kirche 
Jerusalems vom Jahre 70-130,’ pp. 29f.). Otherwise one might think of 
some presbyter called Judas (Dahl). 


358 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


antinomian tendencies was so notorious. This, at any rate, seems spon the 
whole a more feasible line of conjecture than to suppose that the writing was 
originally an anonymous epistle or a manifesto. 

The destination of the pastoral, whether Syro-Patestine (de Wette, Bartlet), 
Antioch and its neighbourhood (Chase), Corinth* or, as some have more 
plausibly argued, Egypt (Mayerhoff, Schenkel, Mangold, etc.), cannot be 
precisely ascertained from the contents, and tradition is silent. If a Judas of 
the first century wrote it, Palestine or Antioch is a natural suggestion. The 
resemblances between the gnostic phenomena of J.’s opponents and those 
of John’s apocalypse, the Pauline pastorals, and Ignatius, might suggest Asia 
Minor (so von Soden and Bacon, the latter conjecturing that the local 
destination of the epistle has disappeared from the title), but more or less 
analogous phenomena can be shown to have emerged in several quarters. 
As a matter of fact, we are absolutely in the dark as to the relation 
between the writer and his audience. The pastoral resembles 1 John in its 
general outlook and adaptation to some definite situation or circle of churches 
whose oversight belonged to the writer. How Judas learnt of the peril, 
whether by observation or by information, why he wrote instead of visiting 
the churches in person, and what was the outcome of his manifesto—on these 
topics the epistle itself and the subsequent tradition of the church yield 
no information whatsoever. ‘Possibly he meant his tract to be a sort of fiery 
cross, to rouse the churches. Instead of showing its readers how to contend 
for the apostolic faith (v.’), it is so engrossed with the invaders that not 
until the very close is any instruction given as to the behaviour of true 
Christians in the crisis. To be forewarned was evidently, in J.’s view, to 
be forearmed. Were any tradition extant, connecting Judas with some lost 
treatise or epistle, it would be tempting to read ν. in the light of Tit 1°, 1 Ti 
3141. as a piece of literary vvaisemblance on the part of the pseudonymous 
author, in order to justify the object and size of the writing, and its lack of 
positive religious teaching. The obscurity of the whole situation unfortunately 
prevents us from discovering, except in a general sense, what that religious 
teaching could have been. 


2 PETERY 


LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—Besides most editions of 1 Peter and Judas 
(g.v.), the following special commentaries: C. Ullmann (Der zwezte Brief ἢ. 
hritisch untersucht, 1821); W. O. Dietlein (1851); F. Steinfass (1863) ; 
Harms (1873); J. F. Demarest (New York, 1865); L. J. Hundhausen, 
Das sweite Pontifikalschreiben des Apostelfiirsten Petrus (1878); Lumby 


* On the slender ground that the evils denounced by J. resemble those 
attacked by Paul in Corinth. 

+ ‘Many of the phrases packed together in Jude’s epistle might each be 
the head of a discourse; so that I could easily believe that we had in this 
epistle heads of topics enlarged on, either in a larger document, or by the 
apostle himself in viva voce addresses ” (Salmon, 77. p. 477). 

+ On the latest book in the NT canon, English scholarship is easily arst ; 
Chase’s article and Mayor’s edition throw all previous work into the shade. 


2 PETER 359 


(Speaker’s Comm. 1881); Plummer (Ellicott’s Comm. 1883); Weidner’s 
Annotations (New York, 1897); R. H. Strachan (5 6 7, 1910). 

(ὁ) Studies—F, A. 5. Nietzsche’s Zfzstola Petri posterior uindicata 
(1785); J. F. Flatt, Genuina sec. P. Epistole origo defenditur (Tiibingen, 
1806); P. E. Picot, Recherches sur la deux épitre de Pierre (Geneva, 1829); 
F. H. Kern, de secunda Petri epistola (Tiibingen, 1829); C. N. de Graaff, 
Analecta in ep. P. alteram (1833); A. Delille, L’authenticité de la seconde 
épitre de Pierre (Strassburg, 1835); J. H. Magnus, Hxamen de Pauthent. de 
la sec. ép. de S. Pierre (1835); L. Heydenreich, Ein Wort zur Vertheidigung, 
etc. (1837); L. Audemars, Seconde épitre de Pierre (Geneva, 1838); A. L. 
Daumas, Jxtrod. critique ἃ la deux. épitre de Pierre (Strassburg, 1845); F. 
Ollier, Zssaz introduction critique ἃ la sec. épitre de 5. Pierre (Toulouse, 
1852); E. G. King, Did S. Peter write in Gk.? Thoughts and criticisms 
intended to prove the Aramaic origin of Second Peter (Cambridge, 1871); 
Grosch, die Echthett des 2. Briefes Petrus (1889, sec. ed. 1911); F. H. Chase 
(DB. iii. 796-818)* ; Schenkel (BZ. iv. 502-506) ; Sanday, Zuspiration (1893); 
346 f., 382 f.; McGiffert, 44. 600f.; O. Cone (242. 3682 f.) ; Moffatt 
/1NT.? 596 f., 707 f.) ; Pfleiderer (Ure. iv. 255 f.) ; Abbott (Dzaz. 1116f.) ; K. 
Henkel, Der zwette Brief des Apostelfiirsten Petrus gepriift auf seine Echthett 
(1904*); A. Camerlynck (Collectiones Brigenses, 1907, 6-13, ‘queritur 
utrum demonstrari possit, sec. epist. S. Petri a principe Apostolorum fuisse 
conscriptam’); Dillenseger (A/élanges de la Faculté Orientale, Beyrout, ii. 
173-212, 1907, ‘l’authenticité de la deux. ép. P.’) ; 5. J. Case (DAC. ii. 207 f.). 


§ 1. Contents and characteristics.—The salutation (11:3) passes 
over into an exhortation (1?) to attain, by means of a pure and 
diligent life, that ἐπίγνωσις of the divine nature which is at once 
the privilege and goal of Christianity. Such a reminder (112) 
comes with special aptness from one whose apostolic relation to 
Jesus guarantees his witness to the historic voice of God. 
Furthermore, Christians (1!) have OT prophecy to be their 
light in this darkling world until the second advent cf jesus. 
The mention of the OT prophets, however, reminds the writer 
that there were false prophets as well, and this leads him (2) to 
denounce in round terms the false teachers of his own day as 
vicious, greedy, and insubordinate characters who will share the 
doom of their prototypes, viz. the fallen angels, the coptempor- 
aries of Noah, and the men of Sodom and Gomorrha The 
prediction of the doom awaiting these apostates is followed (2101) 
by a pungent description of their malpractices. In writieg thus, 
the author is only reminding his readers once more of the OT 
prophecies and the apostolic injunctions (31:2). They must 
remember that the appearance of those who idly scoff at the 
second advent is one mark of the latter days (3°7),1 whereas the 

1Cf. Clem. Rom. xxiii. 3, 2 Clem, xi. 2, 3°=En 83°, 


260 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


coming of the Lord’s day is sure (335). This great hope of a new 
world implies that Christians must keep themselves pure and 
steadfast, to be worthy of it (3115). With an appeal to Paul’s 
authority * for the view of a gracious purpose in the delay of the 
end (3155), and a final exhortation to growth in the grace and 
γνῶσις of Christ, the pastoral ends in a brief doxology (318). 


The Hellenistic colouring of the tract is noticeable. Terms like θεία 
δύναμις (18) and θεία φύσις (1*) were, indeed, current during the first century, 
but their application to Jesus Christ is strange, and their point is missed unless 
the writing is placed in the second century, when a diffused Stoicism was 
predominant throughout the empire, whose keynotes were participation in the 
divine nature and advance (προκοπή, cp. 157) in the scale of ethical virtue 
(ἐπιχορηγεῖν, see below), and when a type of γνῶσις was popular which was 
compatible with an inadequate conception of the χάρις in Christ’s person and 
with a defective morality. Beside these lie late Greek terms like ἔκπαλαι, 
ὑπόδειγμα, γεγυμνασμένην (2'4),f (Ὁ ὑποζύγιον Ξε 455), ὀλέγως, ἐξεράω (=vomit), 
the use of active for middle in 3}, splinters of Hellenistic Greek like λήθην 
λαβών (Josephus) and μυωπάζων (195),} the dramatic background of ἐπιχορηγη- 
θήσεται (14), the technical term ἐπόπτης (116=initiate), unique semi- 
philosophical formations like αἰώνιος βασιλεία (111) and εἰλικρινὴς διάνοια 
(properly=pure reason, Plato’s Phed. 66 A), grandiloquent periphrases like 
ἡ μεγαλοπρεπὴς δόξα (117), eves full of an adulteress (2'4), and 6 ζόφος τοῦ σκότους 
τετήρηται (217 as the doom of wells and mists !), the awkward abstract plurals 
in 311 etc. etc. Similarly, an examination of the linguistic data shows that 
the writer’s characteristic vocabulary is often allied to the Greek versions of 
the OT or of extra-canonical volumes (¢.g. ἄπταιστος, 3 Mac 6%; γογγυστής, 
Theod. Pr 26”, Symm. Pr 26”, Is 29%; ἐκπορνεύειν, ἐμπαικτής, Theod. Is 34; 
ἐνυπνιάζεσθαι without ἐνύπνιον, and ἀΐδιος, ἄλογα, ζῴα, σπιλοῦν from the Book 
of Wisdom).§ These indications of provenance need not be pressed, however. 
Thus the occasional resemblances to iambic rhythm which have been noted 
(Bigg refers to 27" 8: 4) are no more than the accidental cadences that recur in 
many of the imaginative reaches of prose literature, from Livy and Tacitus to 
Dickens. Even the παροιμία of 233 need not be referred to the influence of such 
writers as Ezekiel of Alexandria ; the second part, at any rate, echoes (p. 35) 
the traditional reproach upon Nadan preserved in the Syriac and Armenian 
texts of Ahikar (cp. J. Rendel Harris in Zhe Story of Ahikar?, pp. \xviiif.), 
**My son, thou hast behaved I:ke the swine which went to the bath (λουσα- 
μένη, 2 P.) with people of quality, and when he came out saw a stinking 
drain and went and rolled himself in it.” At the same time, there is signifi- 


* Echoing perhaps Polyk. iii. 8 (τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου, 
bs... ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολάς). 

+ The genitive with this, like the description of the mists in 217, is one 
trace of the Homerisms frequent in second-century rhetoric. 

¢ “‘ There can be little doubt that the writer of 2 P. is here guilty of a 
rhetorical bathos " (Chase, 808). 

§ For some traces of the Apocalypse of Baruch, see M. R. James’ edition, 
pp. lviii-lix. 


2 PETER 361 


cance in the pagan and Philonic* conception of inspiration as a state in which 
men were simply mouthpieces of the divine spirit (171, so φθεγξάμενον in 21°) ; 
in classical borrowings like the second proverb of 233 and στηριγμός (317), and 
especially in the exploitation of the idea, familiar to Jews (cp. Joseph. «4512. i. 
2. 3: ‘‘Adam’s prediction that the world would be destroyed one day by 
the force of fire, and at another time by the force of water”) and to 
Christians of the second century, but promulgated especially by contemporary 
Stoicism (cp. Zeller’s Stozcs, Epicureans, and Sceptics, Eng. tr. pp. 155f.), 
that the universe was to be destroyed by fire; no less than in solecisms like 
βλέμμα, which the author uses as=seezng, instead of ocular expression (2°), 
παραφρονία (25), κύλισμα (233, properly=a cylinder), ἐμπαιγμονή (3%), the 
genitive after βραδύνει (cp. Blass, Gramm. § 36. 9), the use of σπεύδειν (312), 
the present for the future in 312 (τήκεται), and καυσοῦσθαι (31% 15). 

This Hellenistic colouring is mediated by Alexandrian influences, however, 
and is associated with a strong predilection for the midrashic tendencies of the 
later Judaism (see above, p. 23). There (cp. Kalisch, Bzd/e Studies, i. 24 f.), 
while some characters like Lot acquired an unwonted halo of respect (cp. 27 
after legends in Bereschith Rabba), others, like Cain, Korah, Balaam, and 
Jezebel, became blackened with the growth of evil associations. Even Philo 
turns Balaam into a juggling, disloyal impostor ; while in Zarg. Jon. on Ex 
711 he is the teacher of Jannes and Jambres (2 Ti 3°), those masters of witch- 
craft and divination who rivalled Moses in his feats of magic (see below, 
Ρ. 399). Thus the allusion to his covetousness in Jud. is probably to be 
seconded by a reference in v.8, where the sezsua/l dreams reflect Balaam’s 
Targumic reputation as an exponent of corrupt dreams. Similarly Noah (25) 
became in Jewish tradition (Jos. Az?¢i. 3. 1; Sib. Or. i. 128; Jub. vii. 20f.) 
a preacher of righteousness to his corrupt age. 

There is a strange parallel (cp. Franke, Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, 1901, 
2760f., and van den Bergh van Eysinga’s Jndische Einfltisse auf Evang. 
Erzihlungen 531.) between 38: 1° and the early Buddhist Nidanakatha (cp. 
Rhys Davids, Buddhist Birth-Stories, i. 58) : °‘ Friends, one hundred thousand 
years from now there will be a new dispensation ; this system of worlds will 
be destroyed ; even the mighty ocean will dry up; this great earth will be 
burned up and destroyed; and the whole world, up to the realms of the 
immaterial angels, will pass away. Therefore, O friends, do mercy, live in 
kindness, and sympathy, and peace.” 


§ 2. Odject.—It is as difficult as in the case of Judas, to make 
out the physiognomy of the errorists from any comparison of 
tne homily with the traits of the second-century errorists pre- 
served for us in Irenzeus and his fellow-apologists. But whether 
heir gnosticism was that of Carpokrates (so Grotius, Schenkel, 
tdangold, Volter, Holtzmann, etc.) or the earlier Nikolaitans 


* Josephus (Anz. iv. 6. 5) applies it to Balaam. 

+ See above, p. 28. The final burning of the star-spirits or στοιχεῖα (31), 
ep. Spitta, 265 f.) is another relic of later Jewish tradition (cp. En 60’ 6953 
utc. ; Wendland, HBNT. i. 2. 369). 


262 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


(Mansel),* its traits are too distinctive to be explained simply 
from the practical libertinism or the incipient scepticism which 
Paul or even the prophet John had encountered within the first 
century, much less from Sadducean Christians (Bertholdt, Zzn/. 
§ 672 f.). 

The Gnostics objected to any proof from the Scriptures, on 
the ground that truth was delivered viva voce, not by means of 
written documents. This at first sight appears to harmonise with 
the catholic position, that tradition is the supreme standard ; 
but the Gnostics rejected the catholic apostolic tradition, prefer- 
ring their own construction, as Irenzeus bitterly complains (iii. 
2f.), and claiming to be wiser “not only than the presbyters, but 
even than the apostles.” This claim in turn led them to twist 
the scriptures into consonance with their own views (παρατρέποντες 
τὰς ἑρμηνείας καὶ ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες τὰς ἐξηγήσεις, Iren. i. 3. 6), and 
both features of their teaching are antagonised by the author of 
2 Peter. The false γνῶσις promulgated successfully (218) in several 
circles of contemporary Christianity by these teachers (2!) appears 
to have developed much the same results in conduct as those 
denounced by Judas—so much so that all the author thinks he 
requires to do is to reproduce the incisive exposure of their greed, 
sensuality, and arrogance, given in the earlier letter. The colours 
are heightened, the terms become more extravagant and excited, 
but the errorists here represent a full-blown development of the 
tendencies opposed by Judas in his pamphlet. The special 
burden of this homily is, however, the rehabilitation of belief 
in the second advent (111 16. 19 33f) as against the scoffers 
(ἐμπαῖκται). To controvert these teachers the writer brings 
forward four pleas: (i.) the primitive apostolic witness of the 
second advent (116), (11.) the messianic prophecies of the (1!%) 
OT which that witness corroborates, (iii.) an explanation of the 
delay (based on a current Jewish piece of exegesis), as really due 
(38) to the long-suffering and consideration of God, and (iv.) an 
assertion that belief and disbelief in the second advent were 

* “‘There may have been shades of difference between them; some, 
perhaps, had a philosophy, and some had not; but in the eyes of the 
Christian preacher, judging the party as a whole by its practical results, 
they would all seem to wear the same livery” (Bigg, 7CC. p. 239). 

+ To infer from the absence of any allusion to chiliasm that the epistle 
must be very old, is doubly erroneous ; for (i.) chiliasm was not universal in 


the second century, (ii.) nor was the quotation from Ps 90" its starting-point, 
as Apoc 20! is enough to show. 


2 PETER 363 


bound up with pure and vicious lines of conduct respectively 
(33 4). Incidentally, he asserts towards the close the complete 
harmony of Paul’s teaching on this point with his own, witha 
view to discredit the appeal made by the errorists to certain 
sayings of the great apostle. 


The errorists who are thus denounced in 2 P. belonged probably to 
circles where spiritualistic views of the universe were promulgated,” as if it 
were immutable ; but while Philo defends this line of speculation against the 
Stoic theory of a final conflagration (de zucorrupt. mundi, 18f.), our author 
uses the latter, which was popular among ordinary Christians of the time 
(cp. Origen, adv. Cels. iv. 11. 79), to rebut the former. If one could be sure 
that their sophzstical myths (119) represented an allegorising interpretation of 
the life of Jesus, it might be possible to see in them an exaggerated expression 
of the spiritualising movement which, as the Fourth gospel indicates, had 
already begun in Asia Minor to resolve difficulties in the literal statement 
of such ideas as that of the second advent. In denouncing them, the writer, 
like the author of the Pauline pastorals (2 Ti 3!*), passes from the future to 
the present ; in the heat of his denunciation he forgets that he has begun by 
putting his counsels into the form of a prediction, couched against appre- 
hensions of a danger in the days to come (cp. Henkel, of. εἴ7. 37f.), and 
speaks of the errorists naturally as they lived and moved before his eyes. 


§ 3. Period and origin.—Even apart from the use of a pas- 
toral (Judas) which was not composed till long after Peter had 
died, the late origin of the epistle, involving its pseudonymous 
character, would be revealed by the character of (a) its allusion 
to Paul’s epistles (315, where af γραφαί cannot be non-technical). 
These are apparently viewed as the subject of varied interpreta- 
tions and even of serious misunderstandings. Furthermore, they 
are ranked on a level with the other scriptures, 1.6. the OT 
primarily; and evidently a collection of them is presupposed 
(cp. Gutjahr, pp. 49f.), for the reference of 3! can hardly be 
confined to Romans (25 9?%, so Grotius, Huther, and Dietlein) + 
or Ephesians (with its conception of σοφία, so Hofmann, 
Belser, von Soden), or Thessalonians (Alford), or Galatians 
(Augusti), much less Hebrews (Cramer, Benvel, Horne, Forster, 
Apost. Authority of Hebrews, pp. 625 f. etc.), or some Pauline 
letter no longer extant (so, ¢.g., Pott, Kihl, Spitta, Zahn, Bigg). 
This allusion (cp. Spitta, 286f.) to a collection of Pauline 


* Cp. Irenzeus, adv. haer. v. 19. 2: substantiam [mundi] a semetipsa 
floruisse et esse ex se natam ... alii aduentum Domini contemnunt, 
incarnationem eius non recipientes. 

+ This is used by those who, like Mayor recently, argue for the Roinan 
destination of the writing. 


364 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


epistles is therefore an anachronism which forms an indubit- 
able water-mark of the second century, and which is corro- 
borated by the allusion to your apostles in 3%, where the 
context, with its collocation of prophets and apostles, reflects 
the second-century division of scripture into these two classes. 
The general period is further indicated by (4) the dependence of 
the homily upon 1 Peter. Early in the church the differences 
of style between 2 Peter and 1 Peter led many to suspect that 
the former was not written by the author of the latter. “ Simon 
Petrus . . . scripsit duas epistolas, que catholicz nominantur ; 
quarum secunda a plerisque eius negatur propter stili cum priore 
dissonantiam ” (Jerome, wé7. in/ust. 1). The differences of style 
and diction are exactly those which denote an individual writer, 
who is composing his work with 1 Peter, if not with the Petrine 
speeches in Acts, before his mind (cp. Simcox, Writers of VT, 
63-69, with the older works of Olshausen and Mayerhoff, 
Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, 158-170). 2 Peter is 
more periodic and ambitious* than 1 Peter, but its linguistic 
and stylistic efforts: only reveal by their cumbrous obscurity 
a decided inferiority of conception, which marks it off from 
1 Peter. Thus—to mention only one or two characteristics in 
the vocabulary—émxopyyetv is used, not as χορηγεῖν in τ P 4 
(and Paul) in a religious application, but in its ethical sense 
current among philosophic moralists (15); the groups of words 
compounded with ἀγαθός and κακός, which recur in 1 Peter, are 
entirely absent from the later writing; the predilection for 
compounds with σύν disappears in 2 Peter, while in the latter 
ἐπόπτης replaces μάρτυς, ἡγέομαι displaces λογίζομαι, the gospel 
becomes an ἐντολή, and the expectation of the near end (1 P 47) 
is prolonged indefinitely (2 P 3* 8). τ Peter never uses words 
like ἐκεῖνος or ὅσος, εὐσέβεια or εὐσεβής, κρίσις Or μισθός, ὑπάρχω 
or ὑπομονή, whereas, on the contrary, 2 Peter uses δὲ καί but 
never μέν... δέ, or ἀλλήλων, ἀπειθέω, ἐλπίς, ἔθνος, κληρονομία, 
ζάω, μένω, the sing. of ὀλίγος, φόβος, and the ideas of joy and 
sojourning; unlike 1 Peter, the writer also is fond of using 
σωτήρ (and that of Christ), ἀποφεύγω, ἐπίγνωσις, 650s, and 
παρουσία (for ἀποκάλυψις), though the end is not the appearance 


* “Neither style nor matter can be called simple. It is not altogether 
without eloquence, but the eloquence is elaborate and often artificial, as in 
the octave of virtues (158). In many passages the thought is too subtle to be 
easily followed” (Mayor, cxiii). 


2 PETER 365 


of Christ but the day of terrible judgment. Even after all 
allowance is made for difference of subject, ¢g., such con- 
siderations fail to account for the discrepancies of thought and 
expression, except upon the hypothesis of a dual authorship. 
“ΝΟ change of circumstances can account for the change of 
tone of which we are conscious on passing from the one epistle 
to the other” (Mayor, p. 1xxx). 

This difference of tone and style involves the pseudonymous 
character of 2 Peter. The writer is at pains to invest his 
writing with verisimilitude. Symeon Peter is made to refer to 
his own mission and death, foretold by Jesus (1135), to (11, 
cp. above, pp. 15, 191 f.) the Petrine tradition under Mark’s 
gospel, to the transfiguration of which he was a witness (116), 
and to the First epistle (31), evidently widely circulated by this 
time. 


The recent attempt of Spitta and Zahn to explain 31} as referring to some 
lost epistle and not to 1 Peter, is based on the erroneous idea that 2 Peter is 
addressed to Jewish Christians (and therefore that the audience of 2 P 3} 
could not be that of 1 Peter), and on the assertion that 3} is not an accurate 
description of 1 Peter. But the latter contains teaching on the prophetic 
witness to Christ and on the second coming, besides at least one (51) allusion 
to the apostolic witness. Other features corroborate the late date. Thus, the 
mount of transfiguration is referred to as the holy mount (118) quite in the 
sub-apostolic fashion of investing sacred scenes with a halo of pious associa- 
tions. Jesus is explicitly called θεός (11, cp. 318), as in the later strata of the 
early Christian literature (Jn 11 20%, cp. Ign. pref. ad Eph.). Christianity is 
viewed as the (holy, 271) commandment (37) transmitted through the apostles 
to the churches. Zhe fathers, too, have died (34), 2.5. the founders of the 
church, the first generation, have passed away.* In short, even more 
definitely than in Judas, we are in the atmosphere which reappears not 
long afterwards in Tertullian’s familiar sentence (de prescr. heret. vi.): 
apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio 
quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter 
nationibus assignauerunt. One outcome of this feeling is shown in the fact 
that the author, finding an allusion in Jud 1118 to what he conceived a 
written apostolic prophecy of licentious mockers in the last days, puts into 
the lips of Peter (2 P 3%) words which might serve as a basis for that 


* It is sometimes argued that the pseudonymous writer would not have 
given himself away by thus introducing an anachronism. But, as his use of 
the present tense (21 1% 17-18) already shows, he had to introduce some 
contemporary allusions in order to lend point to his words; whether he was 
conscious of the slip or not, cannot be determined. At all events, the 
<eference is a water-mark of the date, since it is not possible to read οἱ 
πατέρες in this connection as a term for the OT saints. 


366 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


prophecy.* Similarly, it is another method of adding wrazsemblance to the 
writing when the author alludes to Peter’s part in the tradition preserved by 
Jn 211, 


The author thus reveals himself as the composer of a 
pseudepigraphon under the honoured name of Peter (see above, 
pp. 40 f.). What authority he had for writing thus we do not 
know. “Capit autem magistrorum uideri que discipuli 
promulgarint,” says Tertullian (adv. Mare. iv. 5); and if the 
writer felt himself a true disciple of the apostles he probably 
chose this literary artifice, with its self-effacing spirit, for the 
purpose of conveying a message which he believed to be timely 
and inspired. ‘The prestige of Peter, owing to the circulation of 
the first epistle and the tradition of the churches, would naturally 
suggest the use of his name for this encyclical. 


The hypothesis that the phenomena of style and expression may be 
accounted for by a difference of amanuensis, is as old as Jerome (ef. Hedib. 
120, Quest. xi., ‘duce epistolz que feruntur Petri stilo inter se et charactere 
discrepant structuraque uerborum. Ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum 
diuersis eum usum interpretibus’); after being revived by Calvin, who 
thought a follower of Peter might have written at his command, it has been 
more recently defended by Farrar, Cook, W. H. Simcox, and Selwyn (.S¢. 
Luke the Prophet, 157 f., Luke as amanuensis). But there is no allusion to 
an amanuensis in the epistle, and the theory that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were 
dictated to different secretaries is a mere makeshift. The linguistic data of 
the epistle do not bear out the view that Aramaic oral teaching has been 
translated into Greek, and the ideas of the two Petrine letters are too different 
to permit a common authorship for both epistles. The idiosyncrasies of the 
writer of 2 Peter are not less striking than his dependence upon earlier 
authors ; it is hardly too much to say that not another sentence in the extant 
early Christian literature can be shown to have come from his pen. 1 Peter 
has its own charm and beauty, but of the pages of 2 Peter we might almost 
say, as Quintilian said of the verses of Ennius, that they are more impressive 
than beautiful (zon ¢antam habent spectem quantam religionem)—with this 
reservation, that their impressiveness is due not to the weighty Christian 
truths they convey (of the incarnation, the sufferings of Jesus, the resur- 
rection, the Spirit in the Christian, and prayer, they contain not a single 
syllable) but to the moral vigour and earnest feeling of the writer’s protest 
against the lax tendencies of contemporary gnosticising innovations. 

Besides the use of Judas (pp. 348 f.), 1 Peter, and Josephus (pp. 28-29), the 
occasional and remarkable coincidences between 2 P. and the Afocalypse 
of Peter (cp. Chase, DB. iii. 814-816 ; M. R. James, xxvif.) have been held to 


* This is inherently more probable than Kiihl’s idea that Jud 17:18 is a 
quotation from 2 P 3%. The author of 2 Peter draws on Judas, as Eusebius 
in the ninth chapter of his Preparatio Euangelica (bk. ix.) lifts material, 
without acknowledgment, from Joseph. Apion, i. 22. 


2 PETER 367 


involve a literary relationship. Those who feel that (a) the origin of the two 
within the same school of religious thought is inadequate to explain the data 
satisfactorily, argue for (4) a use of the apocalypse in 2 P. (so, 4.9.» 
Harnack, ACL. ii. 1. 470f., and Weinel in ΛΑ. i, 211f. ii. 285f.; (c)a 
use of 2 P. in the apocalypse (so, ¢.g., Bigg ; Zahn’s GA, ii. 810f. ; Belser, 
INT. 870-871 ; Mayor, cxxx-cxxxiv), or even (@) the possibility of a common 
authorship for both (so, ¢.g., hesitatingly Kiihl and Sanday’s /usfzration, 347). 
The popularity of the Petrine apocalypse in many churches during the 
second century, together with the fact that it is attested earlier than 2 P., 
may be held to favour (4), especially as the occurrence and sequence of the 
phrases in question * are more natural in the apocalypse than in the epistle ; 
but a decision on the relationship of the two is handicapped by (i.) our 
ignorance of the conditions in which the Petrine literature of the second 
century originated, (ii.) the possibility that both t drew on common sources of 
a syncretistic nature, and (iii.) the fragmentary state of the extant apocalypse. 
The alternative lies between (a) and (4); in the present state of our know- 
ledge, the probabilities upon the whole incline to (4). It is more likely, at 
any rate, that the existence of the apocalypse was one of the motives which 
inspired the composition of 2 P. (in its apocalyptic outlook) than that 
2 P 2-3 led to the fabrication of the apocalypse. The origin of the Petrine 
canon (gospel, acts, and epistles) during the first two centuries is one of the 
most enigmatic problems in the early Christian literature ; but, while 1 P. 
was certainly the earliest and the Acts are certainly the latest of the group, 
2 P. is linked somehow to the κήρνγμα and the ἀποκάλυψις not later than 
the middle of the second century. 


The determination of the epistle’s relation to the Petrine 
apocalypse is practically the only clue to the period of its com- 
position in the second century. Most critics suggest ¢c. A.D. 150 
(e.g. Hilgenfeld, Bleek, Mangold, Renan, S. Davidson, R. Knopf, 
Holtzmann, von Soden, Chase, Jacoby in V7 £thik, 459f., and 
Brickner), though some go earlier (before a.D. 130, Ramsay, 
Simcox, Strachan) and others later (e.g. Semler [in Paraphrasis : 
‘alteram uero epistolam seculo demum secundo tribuere audeo 
et quidem fere labenti’], Keim, Sabatier, Pfleiderer, Schenkel, 
Schwegler, van Manen, and Harnack). The terminus ad quem 
is furnished by the fact of the epistle being known to Origen (Eus. 
Hi. 2. vi. 25), and possibly to Clement of Alexandria. This 
renders it impossible to descend later thane. a.D. 170. How 

*The two writings would be brought closer together, if 2 P 116 


(= Apoc. Pet. § 2) were taken, as by Hofmann, to denote a post-resurrection 
appearance of Jesus to the twelve; but this interpretation is improbable 
(cp. Spitta, 89 f., ZVW., 1911, 237-242). 

+ The parallel between the apocalypse (1) and 2 P 2! is hardly closer 
than that between Justin’s Déal. lxxxii. For the Jewish traits of the 
apocalypse, see M. Gaster in Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1893, 571 fey 
and A. Marmorstein in ZIV, (1909) 297-300. 


268 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


much earlier one can mount, depends upon the view taken of its 
relations to the apocalypse of Peter and Justin Martyr (see 
below). When the epistle is considered to have been written by 
Peter, the ferminus ad guem of its composition is naturally the 
latter’s death, z.e. within the seventh decade of the first century. 
But the historical reconstructions involved in such theories are 
more or less hypothetical. The Petrine authorship still finds 
one or two defenders (e.g. Henkel, Camerlynck, and Dillenseger, 
in the Roman church); R. A. Falconer (Zx.° v. 459 f., vi. 47 £, 
117f., 218 f.) regards it as a genuine circular epistle addressed by 
Peter to the churches of Samaria, while others conjecture that it 
was prompted by the disorder at Corinth and written, previous to 
1 P., either from Antioch to the Jewish Christians of Palestine 
before the seventh decade (Zahn and Wohlenberg), or to Asiatic 
churches troubled by stragglers from the main body of the 
Corinthian errorists (Bigg). But, apart-from the insuperable 
internal difficulties and the absence of all primitive tradition, 
even the ingenious attempt of Zahn and Spitta to regard it as 
more Petrine than 1 P. is shipwrecked on the linguistic data, and 
the defence of B. Weiss and Grosch falls with their impossible 
date for 1 P. It (a) is incredible that a manifesto issued by 
Peter during the seventh decade of the first century should 
only appear in tradition at a very late period, and even then be 
received with considerable suspicion ; and (4) it is worse than 
paradoxical to sacrifice the priority and even the authenticity of 
1 P. in order to avoid the conclusion that a pseudepigraphon 
like 2 P. could be admitted into the canon. 

To sum up: in the strictest sense of the term, 2 Peter isa 
catholic epistle, addressed to Christendom in general (11 418); 
it may be defined as a homily thrown into epistolary guise, or a 
pastoral letter of warning and appeal. Unlike 1 P. (11:3), it is 
directed to no church or group of churches ; the references in 
112f and 417: belong to the literary drapery of the writing, and 
there is an entire absence of any personal relation between the 
writer and the church or churches. No evidence points to 
Gentile much less to Jewish Christians as the audience specially 
in the writer’s mind. The problem of the Jewish Law does not 
exist for him and his readers. 

The origin of the pastoral has been usually given as Egyptian 
(Mayerhoff, of. cit. pp. 193f.; Harnack, Chase); but the 
Apocalypse of Peter was circulated far beyond Egypt, even if it 


2 PETER 369 


was written there ; Philonic traits do not prove any local origin 
for an early Christian writing ; and the evidence is too insecure 
to point decisively to Egypt rather than to Syro-Palestine or even 
Asia Minor (cp. Deissmann’s Bible Studies, 360f., for parallels 
from an early decree of Stratonicea). Indications of its date 
and soil are not to be expected in the case of this or of any 
pseudepigraphon. ‘The real author of any such work had to 
keep himself altogether out of sight, and its entry upon circula- 
tion had to be surrounded with a certain mystery, in order that 
the strangeness of its appearance at a more or less considerable 
interval after the putative author’s death might be concealed” 
(Stanton, /7S. ii. 19). 

§ 4. Jntegrity—Some _ critics* who feel the sub-apostolic 
atmosphere, but who are reluctant to admit that the epistle is 
- pseudonymous, have attempted to clear up the literary problems 
by recourse to the hypotheses of (a) interpolation, and (4) trans- 
position. The most plausible statement of the former (a) is 
Kiihl’s theory that 2!~3? is an interpolation from the epistle of 
Judas, dovetailed into 2 Peter. On this view, the original form 
of the letter is to be found in αἴ} 3718 the allusion to prophecy 
in 120-21 being immediately followed by the exhortation (32) 
to remember the words of the prophets. But (i.) the debt to 
Judas is not confined to 21-3%. Echoes of the earlier writing 
are audible in 1121, so that the connection between Jud. and 
2 P 21-3? is not of itself sufficient to justify the excision 
(Bertholdt, Zzv/. 3157 f.; Kuhl, and Weiffenbach in TZZ., 1898, 
364 f.) of the latter passage + as a later interpolation, much less of 
120b_334 (Gess, Das Apost. Zeugniss von Christi Person, ii. 2. pp. 
414f.), or even of 21-3743) (Bartlet, 4.4. pp. 518-521); such 
attempts are usually dictated by a desire to conserve the rest of 
the epistle as an original Petrine writing, the canonical epistle 
being a later edition of the original brought up to date by the 
incorporation of the bulk of the epistle of Judas. (ii.) There 
are no differences of style in 2!~-3! and in the rest of the epistle 
sufficiently decisive to warrant their separation on the score of 


* According to E. I. Robson (Studies in Sec. Ep. of St. Peter, Cambridge, 
1915), four catechetical flyleaves (15-! 116-18 720_319 33-13) with apostolic 
imprimatur were reset ¢, 130 A.D., after being used by Jud. 

+ Ullmann’s suggestion, that ch. 1 is the fragment of a lost original epistle 
of Peter, is not more convincing than Bunsen’s theory that 1112+ 318 
represents the original writing (/gnatius u. seine Zeit, pp. 175 f.). 


24 


370 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


internal evidence; cp. the use of ἀπώλεια (21:3 3716) τηρεῖν 
(24% 17 37), ἐντολή (27) 37), ἡμέρα κρίσεως (29 37), ἴδιος (18: 20 216. 
22 38. 16-17), and the occurrence of ἐπίγνωσις (1? 2%), etc. The 
mockers of 3° are not different from the libertines of 21. (111.) 
This argument is corroborated by the fact that in chs. 1-2 
alike there are uniform traces of Apoc. Pet., which militates 
against the theory of two separate authors, though not against 
the cognate view of Grotius,* who held that 1-2 and 3 were 
different epistles (31 alluding to 1-2) by Symeon, the Jewish 
Christian successor of Jamesin the bishopric of Jerusalem (Πέτρος 
and ὁ ἀπόστολος in 1! being interpolated, as well as 6 ἀγαπητὸς 
ἡμῶν ἀδελφός in 315, by those ‘ qui spectabiliorem et uendibiliorem 
uoluerunt facere hanc epistolam’). Finally, (iv.) the transition 
between 1°21 and 2! is not artificial. The allusion to true 
prophecy leads the writer to digress into a warning against the 
false prophets of his own age, and to find parallels between the 
propaganda of the future and the past. 

The last-named argument tells equally against (ὁ) P. 
Ladeuze’s ingenious conjecture that 2116 has been displaced, by 
a scribe’s error, from its original position after 2°* (B., 1905, 
543-552). Such a rearrangement, it is claimed, smoothes out 
the roughness of connection between the prophetic future of 
21-8 and the present of 2%, since this change of outlook is 
mediated by 3!%-4&; it also acquits the author of the awkward 
digression of ch. 2, where he seems to forget the question of 
the advent with which he had started, for on this rearrangement 
the warnings against errors on the advent precede the negative 
section (319 28-22), which warns the faithful against the seductive 
arguments of the errorists. But it seems too elaborate to 
suppose that some copyist of the archetype, who was inter- 
rupted at 2°, began again by mistake at 28 and only added 
the omitted passage at the close, perhaps marking the error 
by a note on the margin which has disappeared. This im- 
plies that the archetype was in roll form; but even were it 
otherwise, the transposition of a leaf would be a possible 
accident; and in a palimpsest of the eighth or ninth century 
it is pointed out that 2522 (75 lines) is almost equal in 
length to 3116 (72 lines). On the other hand, the object of the 

*So Weber, De numero epistolarum ad Corinthios rectius constituendo, 


pp. 153f., laying undue stress on the tense of γράφω (3!). Grosch takes 
2 3.518 as a subsequent insertion by Peter in his own epistle. 


2 PETER 371 


transposition ig unnecessary, as the interchange of futures 
and presents is explicable otherwise; the collocation of 3160 
and 28> is unduly harsh; and 3!" (ὑμεῖς οὖν) falls abruptly 
atten, 25-34 


§ 5. Setting and history in early church.—No clear trace of the epistle’s 
existence can be found till comparatively late in the second century. The 
allusions to Noah’s preaching of repentance in Clem. Rom. (vii. 6, ix. 4, xi. 1, 
cp. 2 P 2°) imply no more than an acquaintance with the Jewish haggada 
already current in earlier Jewish literature (see above, p. 25). Μεγαλοπρεπής, 
besides being associated (in substantival form) with the divine δόξα in the 
Psalter (LXX), is one of Clem.’s favourite adjectives,* so that the phrase 
τῇ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ (ix. 2) is as likely a proof that 2 P. (117) used 
Clem. as that Clem. used 2 P. No literary relation need be postulated, 
however, for the phrase may be liturgical] (cp. Chase, p. 799), and any other 
coincidences (e.g. the way of truth,f xxxv. 5=2 P 2?, xxxiv. 4 and 2 Clem. 
v. 5=2 P 14) are slight. The description of those who were sceptical of 
the second advent (xxiii. 2, mzserable are the double-minded which doubt in 
their soul and say, We heard that even in the time of our fathers, but, lol we 
have grown old, and nothing of it has befallen us) recalls 2 P 34; but Clem. 
expressly quotes it Τ᾿ from some γραφή, perhaps Eldad and Modad (see above, 
p. 32); he would probably have cited the phrase more definitely had he 
had 2 P. before his mind. The scanty verbal coincidences (noted especi- 
ally by Mayerhoff and Spitta) in 2 Clem. are due ultimately to a common 
acquaintance with the LXX, while the description of the final conflagration 
(xvi. 3) draws on the same myth as that employed in 2 P 37, just as Barn. 
xv. 4, with 2 P 38, Justin (Dza/. Ixxxi.), and Irenzeus (v. 23. 2), independently 
reflect the Jewish tradition, preserved, ¢.g., in Jub iv. 30 and Slav. En 
xxxill. 1, Either or both of these causes, Ζ.6. use of older Jewish Greek 
scriptures and indebtedness to Jewish traditions, may reasonably be held to 
explain any parallels between the epistle and Test. XII. Patr., or Hermas,§ 
or Melito (cp. Westcott’s Canon, pp. 222-223). There is nothing to show 
that it was known to Irenzeus, who quotes (iv. 9. 2, Petrus ait in epistola sua) 
I Peter, while the apparent reminiscences in Clem. Alex., who must have 
known it if he commented on all the catholic epistles (Eus. 27. 2. vi. 14), 
are neither clear nor definite. The apparent echoes in the Latin version of 
Actus Petri cum Simone may be interpolated. 


* Similarly he loves to speak of God’s glorious and marvellous gifts 
(¢.g. xix. 2, xxxv. I, cp. 2 P 15). 

t Cp. Herm. Vis. iii. 7, 1, and Clem. Alex. Protrept. § τοῦ. 

t In 2 Clem. xi. 2 it is again loosely cited as ὁ προφητικὸς λόγος, which 
throws light on the atmosphere in which 2 P. (cp. 119) was composed. See, 
further, 2 Clem. xi.=2 P 35-4, 

§ Spitta’s (Ure. ii. 399-409) discussion is convincing as against the 
use (Warfield, Zahn) of 2 P. by Hermas; but his argument that 2 P. 
depends on the Jewish original of Hermas, partakes too much of special 
pleading. 


372 .  HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


On the other hand, there are some threads of evidence which suggest that, 
like the apocalypse of Peter, with which it was associated in some circles of 
the early church, the epistle must have been composed by ¢. A.D. 150. The 
use of éod0s=martyrdom (cp. 11°) in the epistle of Lyons and Vienne would 
not itself be decisive (cp. DA. iii. 770), but another phrase (ὁ δὲ διαμέσου 
καιρὸς οὐκ ἀργὸς αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ ἄκαρπος ἐγίνετο, Eus. 27. £. v. 145) is too unique 
to be almost anything than a reminiscence of 2 P 18 (οὐκ ἀργοὺς οὐδὲ 
dxdpmovs) ; cp. also the description of the apostates* as ‘sons of perdition 
βλασφημοῦντες τὴν ὁδόν᾽ (2 P 2? dv ods ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας βλασφημεῖται), and 
of Alexander the physician as οὐκ ἄμοιρος ἀποστολικοῦ χαρίσματος (2 P 1}, 
where ἡμῖν =the apostles). Secondly, although ψευδοδιδάσκαλος could easily 
be formed on the analogy of terms like ψευδοπροφῆται and ψευδαπόστολοι, 
still its use in Justin’s Déa/. lxxxii. (‘as there were also false prophets in the 
time of the holy prophets who arose among you [Ζ.6. Jews], so, too, are there 
in the present day many /a/se teachers, of whom our Lord forewarned us’), 
especially in view of 2 P 2! (‘false prophets also appeared among the People 
[é.e. the Jews], as among you also there shall be false teachers . . αἱρέσεις 
ἀπωλείας), seems more than an accidental coincidence. As the context shows, 
Justin is referring loosely to Mt 24% when he speaks of the Lord’s 
warning ; but this does not exclude the Petrine reference in the preceding 
words, particularly as αἱρέσεις and false prophets are conjoined in Déa/. li. ; 
cp., too, Aol. i. 28 (καὶ yap ἡ ἐπιμονὴ τοῦ μηδέπω τοῦτο πρᾶξαι τὸν Θεὸν διὰ 
τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος γεγένηται᾽ προγινώσκει γάρ τινας ἐκ μετανοίας σωθήσεσθαι) ἢ 
with 3%. Thirdly, Theophilus of Antioch some years later appears to have 
2 P 121 in mind when he writes of of δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι πνευματόφοροι 
πνεύματος ἁγίου Kal προφῆται γενόμενοι (ad Autol. ii. 9), though πνευματόφορος 
does occur in the LXX (Hos 97, Zeph 34); and he is as likely to have 
derived the idea of ad Aut. ii. 13 (6 λόγος αὐτοῦ, φαίνων ὥσπερ λύχνος ἐν 
οἰκήματι συνεχομένῳ, ἐφώτισεν τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν) from 2 P 1” as from 4 Es 12”, 
whence the author of 2 P. drew it (cp. Schott, pp. 278 f.). Here as else- 
where such verbal echoes do not necessarily imply literary filiation. All they 
denote may be the existence of the book which first gave currency to the 
particular phrase or phrases; the latter would often pass into the Christian 
parlance and be used by those who knew little or nothing of their origin. 
Thus with regard to 2 Peter, ‘‘the church of Vienne, for example, may have 
quoted one of its phrases, and yet never have read the epistle itself. Indeed, 
there is reason for thinking that the epistle did not enjoy a wide circulation. 
Otherwise it would be difficult to account for the extremely bad state of the 
text ” (Bigg, p. 211; cp. Vansittart in Journal of Philology, iii. 537). Even 
in the fourth century it was not only rejected by the Syrian canon but 
regarded with suspicion, and more than suspicion, in most circles of the 
Western church. 


* Were it alone, this might be referred to the Apoc. Petri, 22, 28 
(βλασφημοῦντες τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς dixatocvyys). 

+ His failure to cite 2 P 3 when (Afo/. i. 20) proving belief in the world- 
conflagration is significant, but it should not be pressed too far. Origen’s 
similar silence (c. Ce/s. iv. 11. 79) is probably due to his suspicion of the 
epistle, whose conception of the fire differed from his own. 


EPHESIANS 373 


(B) EPHESIANS. 


LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—Launcelot Ridley, Comm. on Ephesians 
(London, 1540); J. Nacchiante, Hmarrationes in Eph. (Venice, 1554); 
Musculus, Comment. in epp. ad Galatas et Ephestos (1561); M. Bucer, 
Pralectiones in Ephes. (1562); Binemann’s Zxfositéo (London, 1581); 
Robert Rollock’s Commentarius (Edinburgh, 1590); B. Battus (1619); P. 
Bayne (London, 1643); D. Dickson’s Expfositio Analytica (Glasgow, 1645) ; 
Principal R. Boyd (London, 1652); Fergusson of Kilwinning (Edinburgh, 
1659) ; G. Calixtus (Zxpositio litt. in epistolas ad Eph. Col., etc., 1664-1666) ; 
Locke (London, 1707); P. J. Spener (1707); P. Dinant, de Brief aan die 
Efese (1711); M. Harmeken (1731); A. Royaards, Paulus’ brief aan de 
Ephesen schrifim. verklaart (Amsterdam, 1735-8) ; J. D. Michaelis (1750) ; 
Schulz (Leipzig, 1778); J. A. Cramer, ewe Uebersetzung des Briefs an die 
Epheser, nebst eine Auslegung (Hamburg, 1782) ; F. A. W. Krause (1789) ; 
Miiller (Heidelberg, 1793); S. F. N. Morus (Leipzig, 1795); G. C. Popp, 
Uebersetzung u. Erkldrung der drei ersten Kapital des Briefs an die Eph. 
(Rostock, 1799); J. F. von Flatt’s Vorlesungen (1828) ; K. R. Hagenbach 
(1829); F. Holzhausen (Hanover, 1833); L. J. Riickert (Leipzig, 1834) ; 
G. C. A. Harless (1834); F. K. Meier (Berlin, 1834); C. S. Matthies 
(1834); T. Passavant, Versuch einer prakt. Auslegung, etc. (Basel, 1836) ; 
Baumgarten-Crusius (Jena, 1847) ; De Wette? (1847) ; Stier (Berlin, 1848) ; 
C. Kahler (Kiel, 1854) ; C. Hodge (New York, 1856); 5. H. Turner (New 
York, 1856); Harless? (Stuttgart, 1858); R. E. Pattison (Boston, 1859); 
Newland (Oxford and London, 1860); Olshausen (1860); Bleek’s Vorle- 
sungen (Berlin, 1865); Schenkel? (1867, Lange’s Bzbel- Werk); Braune? 
(zb¢d, 1875, Eng. tr. of first ed. New York, 1870); Ewald (Senxdschretben, 
1870); Hofmann (Nordlingen, 1870); Koster (1877); Hahn* (1878); 
Reuss (1878) ; Meyrick (Speaker's Comm. 1881) ; Eadie? (Comm. on Gk. Text 
of Epistle of Paul to Eph., Edinburgh, 1883) ; J. Ll. Davies? (London, 1884) ; 
Ellicott® (1884) * ; Schnedermann (Kurzgef. Comm. 1888); M. F. Sadler 
(London, 1889); J. Agar Beet (1890f.); J. T. Beck’s Erkldrung αἰ, Briefes 
P. an die Eph. (Giitersloh, 1891); A. Klépper (Gottingen, 1891)*; H. 
Oltramare (Paris, 1891); J. Macpherson (Edinburgh, 1892); von Soden? 
(HC, 1893)*; J. S. Candlish (Edinburgh, 1895); G. Wohlenberg (Strack- 
Zockler, 1895); B. Weiss (1896) ; T. Κα. Abbott (7CC. 1897, ‘ primarily philo- 
logical’) ; Haupt® (— Meyer, 1902)*; J. A. Robinson* (1903); S. Ὁ. F. 
Salmond (ZG7. 1903) ; Krukenberg (Giitersloh, 1903) ; W. Lueken? (SV7. 
1907); Baljon (1907); Westcott? (1907); Ε΄. A. Henle? (1908); J. E. Belser 
(1908) ; Gross Alexander (New York, 1910); P. Ewald?(ZA. 1910)* ; Knaben- 
bauer (Paris, 1912) ; M. Dibelius( BT. 1912) ; J. O. F. Murray (CG 7. 1914). 

(4) Studies—(i.) general :—J. F. Burg, Analysts logica, etc. (1708); F. 
Coulin, Recherches critiques sur Pép. aux Ephésiens (1851); E. Coquerel, 
Etudes dogmatiques sur Vépitre aux Ephésiens (1852); Chottin, étude sur 
Pépitre aux Eph. (1858); R. Stier, Die Gemeinde in Christo Jesu. 
Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser (Berlin, 1848-9); R. W. Dale (The 
Epistle to the Ephesians®, 1892); G. G. Findlay (Expos. Bible, 1892); 
Gore (A Practical Exposition, 1898) ; Jiilicher (Bz. i. 866f.). (11.} specially 
against Paul’s authorship :—Baur’s Pau/ (Eng. tr. ii. pp. 1-44); Hoekstra 


374 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


(77., 1868, pp. 599 f.); Schwegler, WZ. ii. 330f., 375f. ; Planck (T%eol. 
Jahrb., 1847, 461f.); Hitzig, zur Paul. Briefe (1870), 22f.; Weizsicker 
(AA, ii. 240 f.); Renan, iii., xii. f. ; Honig (ZV 7., 1872, 63f.); Briickner 
(Chron. 257 f.); S. Davidson (77. ii. 261-300) ; von Soden (/P7., 1887, 
103 f., 432 f., and 7V7. 284-305) ; von Dobschiitz (Ure. 175 f.) ; Pfleiderer’s 
Ure. iii. 300f.; Clemen, Paulus, i. pp. 138f.; R. Scott, Zhe Pauline 
Epistles (1909), 180-208 ; Freitag (ZN W., 1912, 91 f.); Wendland (HBNT. 
i. 2. 361f.). (iii.) for Paul’s authorship :—Liinemann, de epzst. ad Eph. 
authentia, lectoribus, consilio (Gottingen, 1842); W. F. Rinck, dzsputatio ad 
authent, ep. P. ad Ephes. probandam (1848); Rabiger, de Christologia Pauli 
contra Baurium Commentatio (1852); Schenkel (BZ. ii. 120-127) ; Sabatier 
(ESR. iv. 439-442, and in his Paz/, pp. 225 f.) ; McGiffert (4.4. 378-385) ; 
Hort (Romans and Ephesians, 1895, 65-184); A. Robertson (Smith’s 2). 8.3 
i. 947f.); Lock (D2. i. 714f.); Brunet, L’authenticité de [épitre aux 
Ephésiens (1897); Bartlet (4A. 189f.); Shaw, Pauline Epistles® (331 f.) ; 
B. W. Bacon, Story of St. Paul (1905, 299f.); R. J. Knowling, Zestimony 
of St. Paul to Christ, 94f.; Grenstedt (DAC. i. 343f.). (iv.) on special 
points :—Haenlein, de lectoribus Epist. ad Ephesios (Erlangen, 1797); van 
Bemmelen, Efpistole ad Eph. et Coloss. collate (1803); W. C. Perry (de 
rebus Ephestorum, Gottingen, 1837); Méritan (RB, 1898, 343-369, 
*L’ecclésiologie . . .’); J. Albani, ‘die Metaphern.. .” (ZWT7., 1902, 
420-446) ; M. Dibelius, Ge¢sterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (1909), 155-169 ; 
Harnack, Adresse des Epheserbriefes des Paulus (from SBBA., 1910, 696- 
709) ; Coppieters (RB., 1912, 361-390); Moffatt (3 .χ 2.8 x. 89f.). 


§ 1. Outline and contents.—After an extremely brief address 
(11-2), the pastoral opens into the first of its two large sections 
(13-3!) ; this is divided by a brief doxology (37°!) from the 
second (41-69), which concludes with a few lines of personal detail 
(671-24), 13-14 is a glowing paragraph of praise, in rhythmical 
strophes (Innitzer, Z7K., 1904, 612-621, and Coppieters in PB., 
1908, 74-88), to God for his complete and gracious revelation 
to men in Christ, followed by a prayer that the readers may 
have a perfect knowledge of this open secret in Christ as the 
head of the church (11°3). Their personal experience of such 
a salvation is due to grace alone (21:10), and as Gentile Christians 
they should especially realise the gracious union effected by Christ 
between themselves and the Jewish Christians (211-22), Of this 
gospel for Gentile Christians, Paul is the chosen herald (31:18), 
and the section closes with an impressive prayer for their attain- 
ments in the Christian experience (3!*#!, resuming the ideas 
of 115-1), The second section (41=2!) expounds the ethical 
obligations of this privilege, unity (41:16) being set in the fore- 
(τους. Then follows (417 resuming the thought of 4!) a series of 

1 On 4%" cp. Daler in SX. (1890) pp. 579 f. 


EPHESIANS 375 


counsels on purity of conduct (417-4, 424= 210) and the general 
morals of the new life (47-5? 58-5. 6-21), concluding with a house- 
hold table of maxims for wives and husbands (522-4. 25-83), parents 
and children (6!4), and slaves and masters (6°), A final word 
of exhortation on the spiritual conflict (610-18) drifts into a brief 
request for prayer on Paul’s behalf (619-20). 


§ 2. Relation to Colosstans.—The most obvious feature of Eph. consists of 
its resemblances to and differences from Colossians. The relationship 
between the two writings forms an intricate problem of literary criticism, 
which is almost decisive upon the larger question of the period and author- 
ship of Ephesians. In striking a balance between the competing proba- 
bilities, the weight of the arguments (such as they are) inclines upon the 
whole to favour the authenticity of Colossians and the sub-Pauline origin 
of Ephesians (so, ¢.g., Ewald, Mangold, von Soden, Klépper, Heinrici, 
von Dobschiitz, Clemen, Lueken, Wrede, Wendland), and the basis for 
this hypothesis—at best only a working hypothesis—lies in a comparative 
analysis of the two writings. That there is a connection between them is 
admitted on all hands. Those who hold that both were written by the 
same author either place them together in the second century or attribute 
them both to Paul. On the latter hypothesis, he read over Colossians (or 
a copy of it) before writing Ephesians, or else composed the letter when his 
mind was still full of what he had just addressed to the church of Colossé. 
The relationship in this event would resemble that of the Thessalonian 
letters, when 2 Thess. is accepted as genuine. As against the hypothesis 
that a Paulinist wrote Eph. on the basis of Colossians, it is argued that so 
original a genius as this writer would not need to reproduce so much of 
Colossians,* and that the relationship is psychologically more credible if 
Paul wrote both. But—leaving out of account the relationship of 2 P. to 
1 P., since Eph. is far superior in massiveness and height to the former—the 
synoptic problem is enough to show that the deliberate employment of a 
source was not incompatible with original work on the part of an early 
Christian writer, and Eph. may be fairly regarded as a set of variations 
played by a master hand upon one or two themes suggested by Colossians. 

The literary phenomena, in outline, are as follows :— 


CoL. 

(17?) Paul, an apostle of Christ 
Jesus through the will of God, and 
Timotheus our brother, to the saints 
and faithful brothers in Christ which 
are at Colossz : 

Grace to 
you and peace from God our Father. 


EPH. 
(11:3) Paul, an apostle of Christ 
Jesus through the will of God, 
to the saints 
which 
are [at Ephesus.] also the faithful 
brothers in Christ Jesus: Grace to 
you and peace from God our Father 
and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
(13 Blessed be the God and Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ.) 


* “Tmitators do not pour out their thoughts in the free and fervid style of 


this epistle ” (Davies, of. cit. p. 9). 


376 


(13) We give thanks to God the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
praying always for you, (1*) having 
heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, 
and of the love which you have toward 
all the saints* . . . (19) For THIS 
CAUSE WE ALSO, since the day we 
heard it, DO NOT CEASE to pray 
and make request for you, that you 
may be filled with the knowledge of 
his will in all spiritual wisdom and 
understanding. 


(119) to walk worthily of the Lord 


(1784) The son of his love, in whom 
we have our redemption, the forgive- 
ness of our sins... 


(11°) i him were all things created, 
tn the heavens and upon the earth, 
things visible and things invisible, 
εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ 
εἴτε ἐξουσίαι. 


(118-19) and he is the head ὃ οἱ THE 
BODY, THE CHURCH... that in 
all things he might have the pre- 
eminence, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν 
τὸ πλήρωμα || κατοικῆσαι. 


(139) καὶ δι αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι 
τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτὸν, εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ 
τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, 


whether THINGS UPON THE 


HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


(115) FoR THIS CAUSE I ALSO, 


having 
heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus 
which is among you and of your love 
toward all the saints, 


(18) CEASE NOT to give 
thanks for you, making mention of 
you in my prayers, (111) that the God 
of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . may 
give unto you a spirit of wisdom and 
revelation in the knowledge of him. 

(41) I beseech you to walk worthily 
of the calling wherewith you were 
called. 

(15) in the Beloved, in whom we 
have our redemption through his 
blood, the forgiveness of our tres- 
Passes). fm: 

(171) far above all 


ἀρχῆς 
καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος. 
(119 all things in him, things in the 
heavens and things upon the earth.) 

(172-3) And he put all things in 
subjection under his feet, and gave 
him to be the head over all things to 
THE CHURCH, WHICH IS HIS BODY, 
τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν 
πληρωμένου. 

(119) ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν 
τῷ Χριστῷ, THINGS ΙΝ (ἐπὶ) THE 
HEAVENS AND THINGS UPON 
THE EARTH. «... (2%) thatohe 


* Also minor parallels in Col 1°=Eph 1151. Col 13=Eph, 47° (love and 


the Spirit). 


On ἀγάπην in Eph 1° cp. 3.12.8 ii. 136 f., 193 f., 321 f. 


+ Also Col 21=Eph 179 3!%, Col 12= Eph 5” (εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ Πατρί). 
t Except 2" (cross = means of amalgamating Jewish and Gentile Christians), 
this is the only allusion to Christ’s death in Eph.—an advance upon the 


Pauline view in the direction of the Johannine. 


The sacrifice of Jesus (5?) is 


simply adduced as an example of love for Christians (cp. 1 P 2" in another 


aspect of imitation). 


§ In Col. =headship over supernatural spirits and the church alike, in Eph. 
=(primarily) headship over the church. See below, p. 379. 


| Cp. Eph. 3! (ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ θεοῦ). 


Note different 


use of κατοικῆσαι in Col 119 and Eph 3”. 


EPHESIANS 


EARTH OR THINGS IN (ev) 
THE HEAVENS. 


(12) And you ποτὲ ὄντας ἀπηλλο- 
τριωμένους καὶ ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ, 


(132 yet now* has he reconciled 
(ἀποκατήλλαξεν) Τ in the body of his 
flesh through death, to present you 
holy and without blemish and unre- 
provable before him : 


(1%) if so be § that you continue in 
the faith τεθεμελιωμένοι and steadfast, 
and not moved away from the hope 
of the gospel which you heard, which 
was preached in all creation under 
heaven; whereof I Paul was made a 
minister. 

(14) Now I rejoice in my sufferings 
for your sake, and fill up on my part 
that which is lacking of τῶν θλίψεων 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ in my flesh ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
σώματος αὐτοῦ, which is the church ; 


(135) whereof I was made a minister 
κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δο- 
θεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, to fulfil the word 
of God, 


* So Eph 233 (yet now). 


377 


might create in himself of the twain 
one new man, ποιῶν εἰρήνην, καὶ 
ἀποκαταλλάξῃ both jin one body 
unto God διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. 

(21) And you . . . (28) ποιοῦντες τὰ 
θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς Kal τῶν διανοιῶν 
νον. (2!) ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι. . . (215) 
having slain τὴν ἔχθραν in him... 

(418) ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ ὄντες, 
ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι. . . 

(215-16) having abolished in his flesh 
the enmity... might reconcile 
(ἀποκαταλλάξῃ) them both in one 
body . . . (14) to be holy and with- 
out blemish before him. . .+ (577) 
that he might present the church 
to himself... holy and without 
blemish... 

(317) rooted and τεθεμελιωμένοι in 
love . « . 


(37) by the gospel, whereof I was 
made a minister. 

(31) For this cause I Paul, the 
prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of 
you Gentiles . . . (318) ask that you 
faint not at ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσίν μου ὑπὲρ 
ὑμῶν. (17%, the church which is τὸ 
σῶμα αὐτοῦ.) 

3° ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μνστηρίου τοῦ 
ἀποκεκρυμμένον 

(37) ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων... 

(33) τὴν οἰκονομίαν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ 
τῆς δοθείσης μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, (3°) how that 
by revelation ἐγνωρίσθη to me τὸ 


+ In Col. =reconciliation of supernatural powers and of sinners to God, 
in Eph=reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles together (2111) to God; hence 
the change in the conceptions of the Body, making peace, and the enmity. 
The function of reconciliation, which in 2 Co 518 and even in Col. is 
attributed to God, is transferred in the higher Christology of Eph. to 
Christ ; a similar instance occurs in 1 Co 12%=Eph 4! (authorship of 


gifts). 


t The addition of ἐν ἀγάπῃ (a frequent phrase), as the form in which the 
spotless character manifests itself, is an un-Pauline touch. 


§ εἴ ye as in Eph 4”. 


378 


(1%) even τὸ μυστήριον" τὸ 
ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων 
καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν---αΐ has nowt 
been manifested τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, 


(137) οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ θεὸς γνωρίσαι 
τί τὸ πλοῦτος THS δόξης 1 τοῦ μυστηρίου 
τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, which is Christ 
in you, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης. 


(13)... that we may present ὃ 
every man τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ. 


(22) συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ . .. 
εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, 
Χριστοῦ. 

(24) τοῦτο λέγω. 

(2°) παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστόν. . .. 

(27) rooted and built up in him, καὶ 
βεβαιούμενοι τῇ πίστει καθὼς ἐδιδά- 
χθητε.}} 


(29) For in him dwells πᾶν τὸ πλή- 
ρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, 


(219) and you are ἐν αὐτῷ πεπλη- 
ρωμένοι, whois the head πάσης ἀρχῆς 
καὶ ἐξουσίας, 

(211) in whom you were also circum- 
cised with a circumcision not made 
with hands... 


(212) you were also raised with him 
διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ θεοῦ 
who raised him from the dead. 


(2'8-14) And you, being dead through 
your trespasses and the uncircumcision 
of your flesh, συνεζωοποιήσεν σὺν 


HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


μυστήριον . . . (35) 8 ἑτέραις γενεαῖς 
οὐκ ἐγνωρίσθη to the sons of men, 
as it has now been revealed τοῖς 
ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ προφήταις 
ἐν πνεύματι... .. 

(19) γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον 
τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ. .. (118) εἰς τὸ 
εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς τίς ἐστιν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς 
κλήσεως αὐτοῦ, τίς ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης 
of his inheritance... (38) τοῖς 
ἔθνεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαι the unsearch- 
able πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. . . . 

(413) [the object of the ministry 
being the attainment of all] εἰς ἄνδρα 
τέλειον, to the measure of the stature 
τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

(416) συμβιβαζόμενον . .. ἐν ἀγάπῃ. 
« « « (433) τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ 
θεοῦ. 

(4117) τοῦτο οὖν λέγω. 

(47°) ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν. 

(222 in whom you also are built 
up together... (317 rooted and 
grounded in love... 

(471) ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχθητε καθώς ἐστιν 
ἀλήθεια. 

(313) and to know the love of Christ, 
ἵνα πληρωθῆτε els πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα 
τοῦ θεοῦ [see also 413 above]. 

cp. 121-33 above. 


(211) you, Gentiles in the flesh, who 
are termed Uncircumcision by that 
which is termed Circumcision, in the 
flesh, made with hands. 

(1920) the exceeding greatness of 
his power els ἡμᾶς τοὺς πιστεύοντας 
κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν of the strength of 
his might which he wrought in Christ, 
raising him from the dead. 

(21) And you, being dead through 
your trespasses and sins... (2°) 
even when we were dead through our 


* In Col. = Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης (23 4), in Eph. =the participa- 
tion of Gentiles ; a difference of emphasis. 
+t Cp. Eph 3” (ἵνα γνωρισθἢῇ viv ταῖς ἀρχαῖς κτλ.). 


Ζ =Eph 23,5. § =Eph 5”. 


| Also Col 28=Eph 55. 


EPHESIANS 


αὐτῷ, χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν πάντα τὰ 
παραπτώματα, having blotted out τὸ 
καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ 
ἣν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, and took it out of 
the way, nailing it to the cross. 

(219) the Head,* ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα 
διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορη- 
γούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον αὔξει τὴν 
αὔξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ. ἵ 


(31) If then you were raised with 
Christ, seek the things that are above, 
where Christ is, seated at the right 
hand of God . . . (3°) For you died, 
and your life is hid with Christ in 
God. 

(3°) πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν, πάθος, 
ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν, καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν 
ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία. 


(35) δι’ ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ. 


(37) ἐν οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατέ 
ποτε, when you lived in them; but 
now do you also put off all these: 
ὀργήν, θυμόν, κακίαν, βλασ- 
φημίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος 
ὑμῶν" lie not one to another, seeing 
that you have PUT OFF THE OLD MAN 


with his doings, and have put on the 
new man, who is ἀνακαινούμενον els 
ἐπίγνωσιν Kar εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος 
avrév. ... 

(317-18) Put on therefore, as ἐκλεκτοὶ 
τοῦ θεοῦ, holy and deloved, σπλάγχνα 
οἰκτιρμοῦ, χρηστότητα, ταπεινοῴροσ- 
ὑνην. πραύτητα, μακροθυμίαν, FORBEAR- 
ING ONE ANOTHER, AND FORGIVING 


679 


trespasses, συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ 
—xdpirl ἐστε σεσωσμένοι----. . . (215) 
having abolished τὸν νόμον τῶν 
ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν. . ss 


(415-16) the Head, Χριστός, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν 
τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συνβιβα- 
ζόμενον διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας 
κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου 
μέρους τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται 
εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ. 

(139) He raised him from the dead 
and seated him at his right hand ἐν 
τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. . . (2°) raised us 
with him, and made us to sit with 
him ἐν rots ἐπουρανίοις in Christ Jesus. 


(419) els ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης 
ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ. .. (5°) πορνεία δὲ καὶ 
ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα ἣ πλεονεξία. .. (55) 
πᾶς πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος ἢ πλεονέκτης, 
ὃ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης . .. 

(55) διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ 
τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας. 

(22:8) ἐν αἷς ποτὲ περιεπατήσατε. .. 
καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε 
. » « (433 PUT OFF THE OLD MAN 
... (45%) Putting off falsehood, 
speak the truth each with his neigh- 
bour. . . be angry andsinnot... 
let no corrupt speech issue ἐκ τοῦ 
στόματος ὑμῶν... (431) let all bitter- 
ness kal θυμὸς καὶ ὀργὴ καὶ κρανγὴ 
καὶ βλασφημία be put away from 
you σὺν πάσῃ κακίᾳ. 

(423) and put on the new man τὸν 
κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ 
ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας. 


(47) with all ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ 
πραὕτητος, with μακροθυμίας, FORBEAR- 
ING ONE ANOTHER in love. . . (432) 
be χρηστοί one to another, εὔσπλαγ- 
χνοι, FORGIVING ONE ANOTHER, 


*In Col., as opposed to supernatural media; in Eph., as opposed to 


schism. See Weinel’s Δ) 7) 7. p. 352. 


+ Also Col 2=Eph 415 ” (verbal parallels). 
Ζ Cp. Eph 14 (καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς. . . εἶναι ἁγίους Th.) 


380 


ONE ANOTHER, if any man have a 
complaint against another; EVEN AS 
THE LORD FORGAVE YOU, so do you: 

(3151) and above all these things 
put on love, ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς 
τελειότητος. And let the peace of 
Christ * rule in your hearts, to the 
which also you were called in one 
body. 

(3517) Let the word of Christ dwell 
in you πλουσίως, ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, teach- 
ing and admonishing yourselves with 
psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, 
singing with grace in your hearts unto 
God. And whatsoever you do, in 
word or in deed, do all in the name 
of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to 
God the Father through him. 

(3'%1®) Wives, be subject to your 
husbands, ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν κυρίῳ. 
Husbands, love your wives, and be 
not bitter t to them. 

(3°) Children, obey parents in all 
things, τοῦτο γὰρ εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν 
kuply.|| 


(3) Fathers, irritate not your 
children, that they be not dis- 
couraged. 


(377) Slaves, obey in all things 
those who are your masters κατὰ 
σάρκα, not with eye-service, as men- 
pleasers, but in singleness of heart, 
fearing the Lord.** Whatsoever ye 


HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


EVEN AS GOD IN CHRIST FORGAVE 
you. (51) γίνεσθε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ 
θεοῦ, as beloved children. 

(43:3) giving diligence to preserve 
the unity of the Spirit ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ 
τῆς εἰρήνης : one body and one Spirit, 
even as also you were called in one 
hope of your calling. T 


(18 τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς 
ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ 
κτλ.) (51°) speaking to yourselves 
with psalms and hymns and spiritual 
songs, singing and making melody with 
your heart to the Lord; giving thanks 
always for all things in the name of 
our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even 
the Father. 

(523) Wives, be subject to your 
own husbands, ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ. .. ἐν 
παντί. (5%) Husbands, love your 
wives, even as Christ loved the church. 

(61) Children, obey your parents in 
all things, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν δίκαιον ὃ 
[then follows the fifth command- 
ment 1]. 

(64) And you fathers, provoke not 
your children to anger: but nurture 
them in the chastening and admoni- 
tion of the Lord. 

(65:8) Slaves, obey those who are 
your masters κατὰ σάρκα, with fear 
and trembling, with singleness of your 
heart, as to Christ; not by way of 
eye-service as men-pleasers; but as 


* Cp. Eph 2!4 (αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν). 

¢ Eph. proclaims the spiritual unity of Jewish and Gentile Christians, not 
as Paul did on the score of arguments drawn from the Law and promises, but 
from the essential and eternal purpose of God. This isa distinct development 
beyond the position of Rom., which neither Col. nor Phil. anticipates. 

1 Broadened out in Eph 451 (πᾶσα πικρία. . . ἀρθήτω ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν). 

§ τὸ δίκαιον applied to masters in Col 4}. 

|| Broadened out in Eph 5! (δοκιμάζοντες rl ἐστιν εὐάρεστον τῷ Kuply). 

Ἵ The εὖ γένηται of 68, unprecedented in Paul, is a LXX quotation. 

** Broadened out in Eph 5*! into ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ 


(the latter an un-Pauline phrase). 


In the table of domestic duties in Eph. 


‘“we miss the brevity and clearness, the insistence on the things of great 
practical significance, which distinguishes Paul” (von Dobschiitz, of. cé¢. 182). 


EPHESIANS 


do, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε as to the Lord 
and not to men; knowing that from 
the Lord you shall receive the inherit- 
ance that is your due: you serve the 
Lord Christ. For the wicked shall 
be paid back for his wickedness, and 
there is no respect of persons. 

(41) Masters, render to your slaves 
what is just and fair; knowing that 
you also have a Master in heaven. 


(47-4) Continue steadfastly in prayer, 
watching therein with thanksgiving ; 
praying at the same time for us also, 
that God may open us a door for the 
word, to declare τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ (for which also I am in bonds); 
that I may utter it as I should declare 
it. 


(458) Walk wisely towards those 
outside, making the very most of your 
time. Let your speech always be ἐν 
χάριτι, ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος know how ye 
ought to answer each person. 


(47-8) Ta κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πάντα γνωρίσει ὑμῖν 
Tychicus, the beloved brother and 
faithful minister and fellow-servant 
in the Lord: whom I send to you for 
this very purpose, that you may know 
τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν, and that he may 
encourage your hearts. 


381 


slaves of Christ, doing the will of God 
ἐκ ψυχῆς ; doing service with good- 
will as to the Lord, and not to men: 
knowing that each shall be paid back 
from the Lord for whatever good he 
does, whether he be slave or free man. 


(6°) And you masters, act in the 
same way to them, refraining from 
threats, knowing that their Master 
and yours is in the heavens, and there 
zs no respect of persons with him. 

(68:30) praying at all seasons in the 
Spirit, and attentive thereto with all 
constancy and entreaty for all the 
saints, and for me, that word may be 
given me whenever I open my mouth, 
to make known with confidence τὸ 
μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (for which I 
am an ambassador in chains) ; that I 
may have confidence therein, as I 
should declare it. 

(515-16) Be careful then how you 
walk, not as unwise but as wise, 
making the very most of your time, 
because the days are evil. (479) Let 
no foul speech issue from your mouth, 
but only such as is good for improving 
the occasion, that it may bring χάριν 
to the hearers. 

(671-22) Now that you also* may 
know τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, τί πράσσω, πάντα 
γνωρίσει ὑμῖν Tychicus, the beloved 
brother and faithful minister in the 
Lord: whom I send to you for this 
very purpose, that you may know τὰ 
περὶ ἡμῶν, and that he may encourage 
your hearts. 


§ 3. Relation to 1 Peter (see above, p. 338).—The affinities of 
thought and structure between Eph. and 1 P. begin with 
the opening doxology, and include the connection of hope 
with the κληρονομία, the conception of the spiritual House 


(with Christ as 


the corner-stone), of the descent into 


* The insertion of this καί means that the writer, with his eye on Col 47, 


intends to present the apostle as having just composed Colossians, 


The 


situation intended for the epistle (cp. 3}%) is that of Colossians. 


382 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


Hades * (49=1 P 319 4), of the Christian tpocaywyy as the object 
of Christ’s death, of ἄγνοια (418 = 1 P 114) as the pre-Christian condi- 
tion, and of redemption by the blood of Christ ; they conclude with 
the parallels in 61% = 1 P 58 (warfare against 6 διάβολος), 62 = 1 P 
514 (peace). Both homilies are addressed to Gentile Christians 
(of Asia Minor), but 219 (no longer strangers and sojourners, cp. 
Odes of Solomon 37) differs from 1 P 2! ; and the ethical admoni- 
tions (5215) are not linked so naturally to what precedes as ini P 
218. which the auctor ad Ephesios is reproducing in his own way. 
Even after allowance has been made for the coincidences due to 
the common store of early Christian thought, critics either differ on 
the question of literary priority or hesitate to pronounce definitely. 
Unless both are to be assigned to the same author, the proba- 
bilities on the whole point to an acquaintance on the part of the 
auctor ad Ephesios with the simpler 1 P., if on other grounds the 
latter is attributed to Peter and Ephesians assigned to a Paulinist. 
The salient parallels are (cp. Selwyn, St. Luke the Prophet, 183 f.):— 


I PET. 


(18) Blessed be the God and Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ... . 


(1195) προφῆται ft... οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη 
ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, 
aviv ἀνηΎΎ An ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγε- 
λισαμένων ὑμᾶς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. . .. 


(112) ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς μὴ συσχημα- 
τιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ 
ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν 
καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι 
ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε. . . - 


(21:1: ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν 
ἐπιθυμιῶν.) 


ΕΡΗ. 


(18) Blessed be the God and Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ... . 


(355) οὐκ ἐγνωρίσθη τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν 
ἀνθρώπων ὡς νῦν ἀπεκαλύφθη τοῖς 
ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ προφήταις 
ἐν πνεύματι. » « « 


(278) . . ἐν rots υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας, 
ἐν ols καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστρά- 


φημεν ποτὲ ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις 
τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν. 


* The Ephesians-passage is influenced, according to Bacon (Story of St. 
Paul, 361 f.), by the sayings οἱ Jesus preserved in Mt 12%, See, further, 


Eph = Mt Isha 48 


+ The auctor ad Ephesios changes the OT. prophets into Christian 


prophets, and fails to connect the reference so aptly 851 P. His estimate 
of prophecy from the standpoint of fulfilment is, as Weiss notes, ‘‘ based 
entirely on the view developed in 1 P 171%, where, as in Eph 3”, the 
contemplative share of angels in the work of redemption is also mentioned ” 
(INT. i. 355) 


EPHESIANS 


(119-30) Χριστοῦ προεγνωσμένου πρὸ 
καταβολῆς κόσμον. . .. 


(22) ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε εἰς σωτη- 
ρίαν. 


(24) mpds ὃν προσερχόμενοι. 
οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς ets 
ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον. . . . (2°) λίθον 
ἀκρογωνιαῖον. 


(2°) λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς 
ἀρέτας ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους 
ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν 
αὐτοῦ φῶς. 


(218) οἱ οἰκέται ὑποτασσόμενοι ἐν 
παντὶ φόβῳ τοῖς δεσπόταις. 


(31) ὁμοίως γυναῖκες ὑποτασσόμεναι 
τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν. 


(37) οἱ ἄνδρες ἃ ὁμοίως. « « ὁ 


(38) εὔσπλαγχροι.} 


(333) (Jesus Christ) who is on God’s 
right hand, πορευθεὶς els οὐρανόν, 
ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξου- 
σιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων. 


383 


(14) Chose us ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ κατα- 
βολῆς κόσμου (cp. 3°). 


(231) ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα οἰκοδομὴ . . . αὔξει 
εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν κυρίῳ. 


(218) δι αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προσα- 
yoynv*® .. . ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν 
πατέρα. .. (27°) ἐποικοδομηθέντες... 
ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ. 


(114) εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποι- 
σεως, Ἷ εἰς ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ... 
(58::) ire γὰρ ποτὲ σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν 
κυρίῳ ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε. 


(65) οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κατὰ 
σάρκα κυρίοις μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμον. 


(532) αἱ γυναῖκες (ὑποτασσόμεναι) τοῖς 


ἰδίοις $ ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ. 


(53) οἱ ἄνδρες. ee 


(45?) γίνεσθε δὲ els ἀλλήλους χρηστοί, 
εὕσπλαγχνοι. 


(139.) (God) seated him on his right 
hand ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ὑπεράνω 
πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνά- 
pews... καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ 
τοὺς πόδας αὐτῷ. 


§ 4. Relation to Lucan and Johannine writings.—(Cp. 


Holtzmann’s Kritik der Epheser und Colosserbriefe, 250 f.) As 
in Luke, men are the objects of the divine εὐδοκία (Lk 214-- 
Eph 1°), the ascension is emphasised (Eph 17 48 10—Lk 2451), 


* Cp. 1 P 338 (ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ). 

+ The passive sense of περιποίησις here (==hereditas acquisita) differs from 
the Pauline active sense (1 Th 5%, 2 Th 214), evidently under the influence of 
the Petrine passage. 

1 This remarkable ἰδίοις in Eph. is one of several traits which show a 
reminiscence of 1 P. in the passage. 

§ In both the duties of husbands, though differently defined, are com- 
paratively brief, whereas the duties of wives are elaborated (in contrast to 
(οἱ 3.8). The description of the latter shows a Biblicising of the Christian 
ideal: (1 P) 205 5 ΞΞΈ ΘΗ ΠΕ 1Ε}} 

|| εὔσπλαγχνος only here in NT (except 1 P 38), 


384 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


and there are further affinities Ἐ in 25 = Lk 154, 538= Lk 15}8, 517 
(6°) = Lk 1247, and 644= Lk 12%, Resch (Paulinismus, 273-274) 
gives a long list of parallels between Eph 2119 and Lk 151132, 
though it is an exaggeration to say that Pauksaw Pharisaic Judaism 
in the older son of the parable. There are also several affinities 
between Eph. and Paul’s address at Miletus, e.g. the βουλή of 
God (1!!=Ac 2027), the commission of Paul (3% 1 411- ας 
2074), the purchasing of the church (1!4= Ac 20%), the κληρονομία 
of Christians (11*= Ac 20%”), and the shepherding of the church 
(44. = Ac 20%). The common use of the ‘ building ’-metaphor for 
the church is not peculiar to Ac 2018 or to Eph., but significance 
attaches to certain traits of phraseology (Ac 20!=Eph 4? 67, 
Ac 2020= Eph 115, Ac 202°= Eph 17, Ac 208?= Eph 118). 

The Lucan parallels touch a smaller group in the same neighbour- 
hood, viz. the Pauline pastorals; cp. ¢.g. the conception of the πρεσβύτεροι 
or ἐπίσκοποι being under apostolic direction, the warnings against insidious 
errorists, the divine χρηστότης (2%=Tit 33+) and unity (45=1 Ti 24), the 
word of the truth (143=2 Ti 2}5), the devil’s devices (64=1 Ti 37, 2 Ti 2%), 
evangelists (411=2 Ti 45), the House of God (2!%=1 Ti 3°, 2 Ti 235); ep., 
further, 15=1 Ti 3! and 2 Ti 3°, 44*=2 Ti 316, 4%=1 Ti 2‘ (coming to a 
knowledge of the truth), 5% ΞΕ: ΤΙΣ 218: and 1 Ti 28, 5%=1 Ti 5%, and 
λουτρόν (5°°=Tit 3°). But beyond suggesting a sub-Pauline mz/zew of thought 
and language, these coincidences amount to very little. 

The interpretation of Christ’s relation to the universe already 
bears traces of the Philonic conception of the Logos which 
afterwards blossomed out in the christology of the Fourth gospel, 
and this opens up the relationship between Eph. and the instru- 
mentum Johanneum. The bridal conception of the church, 
which in the Apocalypse (except in 2217) is eschatological, is 
applied (e.g. 5% 39. 82) to the church on earth (cp. 2 Co 113, 
an epistle with which Eph. has notable affinities); a similar 
process has taken place in the conception of the resurrection 
(254 =Jn 5%! 25), and in Eph. (where the παρουσία falls into the 
background) as in the Fourth gospel the general eschatology 
is spiritualised, in a fashion which is unexampled in Paul, while 
at the same time the writer contemplates a vista of the ages. 


* One or two words are peculiar to Eph. and Lk.’s vocabulary, e.g. 
ἀνιέναι (exc. He 135 LXX quotation), ἀπειλή, ἐργασία, ὁσιότης (4%, as in 
Lk 17, with δικαιοσύνη), πανοπλία, πατριά, πολιτεία, συγκαθίζειν, σωτήριον, 
φρόνησις, and χαριτοῦν. βουλή (=divine counsel) might almost be added to 
this list, for, outside Lk. and Eph., it is only used in this sense in He 6"; 
Paul’s solitary use is in the plural, meaning human devices (1 Co 4°). 


EPHESIANS 385 


The unity of the church, including Gentiles as well as Jews, is 
the divine object of Christ’s death (cp. Jn 1o!® 172°); the church 
is the πλήρωμα of Christ and of God (138 etc., cp. Jn 1420 154 8 
1711}; exceptional stress is laid on the functions of the Spirit, 
the word, and baptism, the unity of the church as the result 
of the divine unity between Christ and God and as the means 
of advancing the gospel, Christ as beloved (14), the idea of 
μέτρον (Eph 417, cp. Jn 31), the description of God in 117 (=Jn 
2017), the collocation of Christ and God as indwelling (Eph 233 
3% =Jn 14% 3%), etc.; see also 49% =Jn 318, 56=1 Jn 3% and 
Jn 4380. 58% = 1 Jn 1% and Jn 12%, 518 = Jn 31%, besides the αὐτός- 
passages (Eph 2!44=1 Jn 2), the use of λύσας (2!4=Jn 219), the 
emphasis on ἁγιάζειν and cleansing (57°=Jn 17!” 1%, 1 Jn 17 9), 
on Ψεῦδος as opposed to ἀλήθεια, on the danger of doketism (Eph 
471), on the spiritual advent of Jesus (2!7=Jn 1.418), on the duty 
of Christian love (Eph 4 etc.), etc. These links of thought 
and language have led one critic to remark that “it would be 
a tenable view that the writer was the author of the Fourth 
gospel, writing in the name of St. Paul” (Lock, DZ. i. 717), 
but the likelihood is that the unknown auctor ad Ephesios was a 
Paulinist who breathed the atmosphere in which the Johannine 
literature afterwards took shape. None of the parallels, how- 
ever, between the Apocalypse of John and Eph. is of much 
weight ; the idea that the latter employed the former is quite 
untenable. Like Hebrews, another sub-Pauline writing which 
has also its affinities with the Lucan as well as with the 
Johannine circle, Eph. emphasises the blood of Christ (17= He 
913), his sanctifying influence (525-26= He 1019 1312), his session 
on God’s right hand (130 -- He 18 81 1013), and his gift of παρρησία 
to Christians (3!2= He 41°) ; some linguistic parallels also occur 
(e.g. αἷμα καὶ σάρξ, ἀγρυπνεῖν, κραυγή, ὑπεράνω 7. τ. οὐρανῶν, εἰς 
ἀπολύτρωσιν, αἰὼν μέλλων, προσφορὰ καὶ θυσία), but neither 
these nor stray coincidences like 218=He 718 prove more than 
a common atmosphere of religious feeling and phraseology. 


§ 5. Vocabulary and style.—The literary relations with Col., Lk., and 
the Johannine literature, besides 1 P. and the pastorals, thus indicate a 
period subsequent to that of Paul. Thisis further corroborated by the evidence 
of the language and style, which are on the whole favourable to the 
hypothesis that another mind than that of the apostle is at work in Eph. It 
contains (4) thirty-eight words which are not elsewhere used in the NT 


25 


386 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


literature :—d6eos, αἰσχρότης, αἰχμαλωτεύω, dvavedw,* ἄνοιξις, ἀπαλγεῖν, 
ἄσοφος, βέλος, ἑνότης, ἐξισχύειν, ἐπιδύειν, ἐπιφαύσκειν, ἑτοιμασία, εὐτραπελία, 
θυρεός, καταρτισμός, κατώτερος, κληρόω, κλυδωνίζεσθαι, κοσμοκράτωρ, κρυφῆ, 
κυβεία, μέγεθος, μεθοδεία, μεσότοιχον, μωρολογία, πάλη, παροργισμός, (τὰ 
πνευματικά, πολυποίκιλος, προελπίζειν, προσκαρτέρησις, ῥυτίς, συμμέτοχος, 
συμπολίτης, συναρμολογεῖν, συνοικοδομεῖν, σύσσωμος (cp. Preuschen in ZVW. 
i. 85-86). In addition to these, there are (4) no fewer than 44 words 
which, while employed elsewhere in the NT, are never used by Paul :— 
ἄγνοια (Lucan), ἀγρυπνεῖν, ἀκρογωνιαῖος (1 P), ἅλυσις, τὰ ἀμφότερα (Ac 238), 
ἄνεμος, ἃ ἀνιέναι,}] ἅπαντα, ἀπατάω (Ja 1%, 1 Ti 212), ἀπειλή (Ac 9%), 
ἀσωτία (1 P 4*, Tit 15), διάβολος, ἐπέρχομαι, (τὰ) ἐπουράνια, ἐργασία, 
εὐαγγελιστής, εὔσπλαγχνος (1 Ῥ 38), καταβολή (πρὸ x. κόσμου, τ Ῥ 133, Jn 
17%), λέγω εἰς, μακράν, ὀργίζω, ὁσιότης (Lk 17), ὀσφύς, παιδεία," πανοπλία, 
πάροικος, tt πατρία, περιζώννυμι, tt πλάτος,88 ποιμήν,}}} πολιτεία, 1 campés,*** 
σπῖλος (2 Ρ 2:5), συγκαθίζω (Lk 22%), ttt σωτήριον, τιμᾶν, ὕδωρ, ὑπεράνω (He 
95), ὑποδεῖσθαι, ὕψος, φραγμός, ttt φρόνησις (Lk 117), 888. χαριτοῦν (Lk 138), 
χειροποίητος. The absence of some of these from the extant letters may be 
accidental (¢.g. ἄγνοια, ὀργίξζω), but real significance attaches to the (47 611) 
substitution of διάβολος (as in 1 Ti 3°, 2 Ti 2%) for the Pauline σατανᾶς, and 
the use of ἐν rots ἐπουρανίοις (five times). The collective and objective 
allusion to the holy apostles and prophets (3°), and to the apostles and prophets 
(2%) as the foundation of the church (cp. Apoc 2114), are partly, but only 
partly, eased by passages like 1 Co 9° 12% and Ro 167; probably they too are 
best viewed as water-marks of a later age, which looks back upon the primitive, 
apostolic propaganda. The indirect and rather awkward appeal in 374 (πρὸς 
ὃ δύνασθε ἀναγινώσκοντες νοῆσαι THY σύνεσίν μου KTX.) corroborates this im- 
pression ; the phrase sounds more characteristic of a Pauline disciple than of 
Paul himself.|ji\|| These indications are followed up by other un-Pauline 


* Instead of the Pauline ἀνακαινοῦν. 

¢ Only in Eph 6"? of spiritual beings. 

t Only in Eph 618 with els. Paul invariably uses γρηγορεῖν (1 Th 5°, 
1 Co 1633, Col 4?). 

§ Only in Eph 4" metaphorically. 

Wing at Ge i (He 13° being a quotation from the LXX). 

Tp op (St. with τινά rev. 

pee », 6 in literal sense of moral and mental education, 

fates »» 2!%and 1 P 2! metaphorically. 

ἜΠΗ »», 6! metaphorically. 

88 ” ΕΣ] a ΕΣ 


lll 5, 9) 422 ecclesiastically. 

ἘΠῚ 5 yy 2}3 metaphorically. 

es ” ” 4” ” ’ with λόγον. 
{7Ὶ»» "1.25 ” 

12.» ΓΑ Ύ κα " 

888.,, » 15 οἴ man. 


1} Hort (op. czt. 149 f.) ingeniously but unconvincingly takes ἀναγινώσκοντες 
as=reading the OT. Like 651 it is probably meant to allude to Col. rather 
than to Eph 1% 21-23, or to some lost letter. 


EPHESIANS 387 


touches, such as ἴστε γινώσκοντες (55), the Father of Glory (117), before the 
foundation of the world (1*=Jn 17%), the novel use of μυστήριον (583) and 
οἰκονομία (in providential aspect), the application of φωτίζειν (3°), πνεῦμα τοῦ 
νοός (4%), etc., besides the predilection for the oratio pendens, an un- 
paralleled number of genitival formations (95 in all, out of 155 verses) 
which occur in almost every second verse, including such strange compounds 
as ἁφὴ τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας (41°), ἐπιθυμία τῆς ἀπάτης (432), etc., and some re- 
dundant epexegetic formations (e.g. βουλὴ τοῦ θελήματος, κράτος τῆς loxvos). 

The last-named feature runs through the general style of the writing, 
with its wealth of synonyms, which often add little or nothing to the thought, 
its unique employment of prepositions like ἐν (115 times) and κατά, and the 
unusual length to which the sentences are occasionally spun out, one period 
passing into another through relatival and participial constructions whose 
logical bearing it is frequently almost impossible to determine. The linguistic 
data may be allowed to leave the problem of the authorship fairly open.* 
‘But the idiosyncrasies of the style are by no means so easily explained. 
Thus 12-14 115-28 91-7 211-18 214-16 919-22 31-7 38-12 314-19 41-6 gll-16 417-19 420-24 
58> 518-23 525-27 528-30 61-3 65-8 614-20 are all lengthy sentences which are often 
cumbrous in their internal construction and beset by ambiguities in the 
juxtaposition of clauses and the collocation of separate words. They are 
at once elaborate and irregular. 3213 is a long parenthesis or digression, 
after which 3!“ resumes 3!; similarly the subject is repeated in 21%, after the 
break. Such rhetorical anacoloutha are not paralleled by an impassioned 
irregularity like that in Gal 253, The latter is natural, as the abrupt 
language of a man dictating under the strong emotion of an indignant 
memory. The Ephesian instances, on the other hand, show the deliberate 
indifference of the writer to the niceties of literary symmetry, and thus fall 
into a class by themselves, ‘‘If we may regard this epistle as our best 
example of that σοφία which, according to 1 Co 25, was to be found in Paul’s 
teaching, we may see in its style something like a ὑπεροχὴ λόγου (zd2d. v.1), 
corresponding to the ὑπεροχὴ σοφίας... . It would be less inappropriate 
than elsewhere to call the language elaborate ; and it is at the same time 
apt oftener than elsewhere to stray beyond the bounds of symmetry and 
regularity ” (Simcox, Wrzters of NT. p. 32). 

It is unfair to characterise the temper thus mirrored in the style of the 
epistle as phlegmatic ; + lyric would be a fitter term for the opening chapters 
in especial, with their soaring, subtle movement of thought and at the same 
time 

‘*With many a winding bout 
Of linked sweetness long drawn out.” 


Upon the other hand, these features of serenity and profundity only serve to 
bring out more decisively the difference between Ephesians and the letters of 


* Nageli (Wortschatz des Paulus, 85) goes even further, ‘‘im ganzen 
scheint mir der Wortschatz dieses Briefes . . . eher eine Instanz fiir als gegen 
die Echtheit zu sein.” 

t So von Soden (HC. iii. 1. 90) ; cp. the criticisms of Jacquier, i. 306, and 
Hort (pp. 152f.). Von Soden himself, however, subsequently speaks of the 
‘lyrical’ passages in 4-6 (V7. 287-288). 


388 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


Paul. It is often urged that the acceptance of Colossians as written by Paul 
renders the acceptance of Ephesians more easy, but in some respects it only 
adds to the difficulties felt by the literary critic. ‘The nearer the two are 
brought together, the more distinctive is the impression made by the con- 
ceptions as well as the style of Ephesians ; particularly as regards the latter, 
it becomes increasingly hard to understand the unparalleled phenomena 
which the Greek presents. Granted that ‘the lofty calm which undeniably 
does pervade it may in part be due to the mellowing effect of years, but 
doubtless much more to the sense of dangers surmounted, aspirations 
satisfied, and a vantage-ground gained for the world-wide harmonious action 
of the Christian community under the government of God’ (Hort, of. cét. 
152-153); the problem remains, however, how can such tones be psycho- 
logically harmonised with what we know of Paul’s mind and style a few 
months before and after he wrote thus? Philippians; his swan-song, cannot 
have been written very long after this; Colossians was composed very little 
before. Yet Ephesians stands apart from both, in style and conceptions 
alike. The separate items of difficulty in the thought and expression may be 
explained, but the cumulative impression which they make is that of a writer 
who occupies a later standpoint of his own ; and this is more than corroborated 
by the style, which makes it extremely difficult to” believe that Paul suddenly 
dropped into this method of writing and as suddenly abandoned it. ‘* The 
old vivacity appears to be lost. The sentences and paragraphs become 
larger and more involved. The tone of challenge dies out. Even the 
affectionateness seems buried in weighty but almost laboured disquisitions” 
(Sanday in St. Margaret's Lectt. on Crit. of NT, 1902, p. 22). This may be 
partly due to the fact that the direct controversy of Colossians is absent from 
Ephesians, but the larger explanation of the latter’s general tone is that the 
writer, unlike Paul, is not writing with any particular communities in view. 

Tosum up. The cumulative force of the arguments already noted is in 
favour of a Paulinist, imbued with his master’s spirit, who composed this 
homily in his name as Luke composed the Pauline speeches in Acts (either 
from a sense of what Paul would have said under the circumstances or from 
some basis in tradition). From the writing of such speeches to the com- 
position of an epistolary homily on the basis of an epistle like Colossians it 
was an easy step (cp. pp. 42, 47). The writer designed his work to be read 
(3*) by the church as a manifesto of Paul’s mind upon the situation; it was 
a pamphlet or tract for the times, insisting on the irenical needs of the church 
(like Acts) and on the duty of transcending the older schisms which had 
embittered the two sections of Christendom. 

Schleiermacher (/z/. 165f.), who was the first to detect the internal 
problems of the epistle, suggested its composition by Tychicus under Paul's 
directions—a theory advocated by Usteri and Renan (‘‘ Que Paul ait écrit 
ou dicté cette lettre, il est A peu prés impossible de l’admettre ; mais qu’on 
ait composée de son vivant, sous ses yeux, en son nom, c’est a qu’on ne 
saurait déclarer improbable,” iii. p. xx). The Tiibingen view of Colossians. 
carried Ephesians also into the second century, but the recent recognition of 
the former as Pauline has left the problem of Ephesians more of an open 
question, resembling, ¢.g., the problem of the exact connection between 
Aristotle and the recently discovered treatise upon the Athenian Constitu- 


EPHESIANS 389 


tion. A number of critics (so especially, in addition to those named on 
p. 374, B. Weiss, A/T. i. 377f.; Godet, JVZ. 475-490; Salmon, 77. 
388 f.; Zahn, Zin/. § 29; Oltramare, and Baljon) attribute it to Paul ; Jiilicher 
and others content themselves with a mon /iguet verdict ; while some (see 
Ρ. 375) attempt to do justice to the combination of specifically Pauline 
elements and absolute novelties in thought and language by postulating, as in 
the case of the Pauline pastoral epp., a Paulinist who is reproducing Paul’s 
ideas, on the basis of Colossians, in view of later interests within the neo- 
catholicism of the church. This does not involve the assumption that Paul 
was not original enough to advance even beyond the circle of ideas reflected 
in Colossians, or that he lacked constructive and broad ideas of the Christian 
brotherhood. It is quite possible to hold that he was a fresh and advancing 
thinker, and yet to conclude, from the internal evidence of Ephesians, that he 
did not cut the channel for this prose of the spiritual centre. In Paul’s 
letters there is always something of the cascade; in Eph. we have a slow, 
bright stream which brims its high banks. 

One of the indirect traits of the sub-Pauline period is the significant 
omission of the Lord’s supper in 4° (one Lord, one faith, one baptism). This 
is all the more striking as Paul’s treatment of the eucharist in 1 Co 10!7 (els 
ἄρτος, ἕν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, ol yap πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν) 
naturally pointed to its use as a symbol and proof of the unity of Christians 
with one another and their Lord (cp. Didaché, 94). But the Fourth 
gospel voices a feeling of protest against a popular view of the Lord’s supper 
which was tinged by pagan sacramentalism (cp. E. F. Scott, Zhe Fourth 
Gospel, pp. 122f.); Hebrews (13717) also opposes the idea that the σῶμα 
Χριστοῦ could be partaken of, as in several of the contemporary pagan cults 
(cp. below, p. 455; O. Holtzmann, ZVW., 1909, 251-260) ; Ephesians, we 
may conjecture, shows a like indifference to this growing conception of the 
supper (whether due to Paul, or developed from his language in 1 Cor.), and 
therefore omits the supper entirely. 


§ 6. Destination and object.—The ὑμεῖς of the homily, which 
first appears in 138, is defined in 21! (cp. 2! and 31) as Gentile 
Christians. The writer has these primarily in view; but the 
situation is no longer one in which they are exposed to any 
Jewish Christian propaganda of legalism. In fact, it is assumed 
that the Gentile Christians are now in the majority; it is their 
predominance which forms the starting-point for the broad 
survey of history which Ephesians outlines. The ἡμεῖς of 111-12 
certainly represents Jewish Christians. Paul here voices that 
section of the church in its historical relation to the gospel. 
But the language is general, and neither here nor in 21 (cp. 
Hoennicke, /C. 125 f.) is there any real justification for the view 
that Jewish Christians were contemplated as a definite part of 
the writer’s audience. 

The author addressed his homily in Paul’s name τοῖς ἁγίοις 


390 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, omitting the place-name of 
Col 1! and adding τοῖς οὖσιν (cp. Ro 838 τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς 
οὖσιν) in order to amplify the following phrase, which further de- 
fines the ἅγιοι whom the writer has in mind (cp. 27! ἅγιον ἐν κυρίῳ, 
and 53). Those who defend ἐν ’Edécw as original, explain its early 
omission in some copies by urging either (i.) that this was due to 
Paul himself, who ordered Tychicus to leave a space blank in 
some copies for other churches (so, ¢.g., Schott); or (11.) that it 
was the result of a transcriber’s error ; or (iii.) that it sprang from 
a feeling that passages like 115 3!-* 4?! involved readers who were 
not, like the Christians of Ephesus, personally known to the 
apostle. None of these hypotheses is convincing.* A number 
of early copies in the second century evidently lacked the words, 
as Origen and Basil after him remark; traces of this form of the 
text are still present in the first hand of & and Β,7 and the 
likelihood is that Marcion must have received the epistle in 
this shape. Tertullian charges him with changing the title 
(adv. Marc. v. 17: titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et 
in isto diligentissimus explorator, nihil autem de titulis interest, 
cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam); but this 
merely means that the title of ‘Ephesians’ in Tertullian’s Canon 
(as in the Muratorian) already contained the Ephesian designa- 
tion, whereas Marcion’s differed (cp. adv. Marc. v. 11: praetereo 
hic et de alia epistola quam nos ad Ephesios prescriptam 
habemus, heretici uero ad Laodicenos), and Tertullian naturally 
supposed the canonical title to be the original. He falls back 
on the seritas ecclesie or church-tradition of the title, not upon 
the text, from which any place-name was apparently absent. 


There would be a partial analogy to the insertion of a place-name if the 
original text of Ro 17 were (as in G) τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ κλητοῖς ἁγίοις 


* Jacquier (i. 290) dismisses (i.) as ‘‘une supposition toute gratuité et 
assez ridicule.” WHarnack (Dze Adresse, 704f.), who now identifies Eph. 
with the Laodicean epistle (see above, pp. 159-161), suggests spectosius 
quam uerius that it was the degeneration of the local church (Apoc 3") 
which led to the substitution of Ephesus for Laodicea in the title and 
address (by the first decade of the second century), in order to punish a com- 
munity which no longer deserved to possess a Pauline epistle (cp. 2xf.8 ii. 197 f.). 

+ Also in “the corrector of a later MS (67), whose corrections are 
evidently taken from another quite different MS of great excellence, now 
lost” (Hort). Basil (contr. Eunomium, ii. 19) explicitly writes : οὕτω γὰρ 
(i.e. the reading of Eph 1! without ἐν Εφέσῳ) καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι 
(i.e. Origen and others), καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. 


EPHESIANS 391 


{so Zahn, 7N7. 1. 378f., 394f.), for which, at a subsequent period, τοῖς 
οὖσιν ἐν ‘Pwyn ἀγαπητοῖς θ. x. & was substituted; but the former reading is 
probably due to a revision of the text for liturgical purposes (see above, 
p. 141). It is not certain whether Tertullian’s words imply that Marcion’s 
text or his own text had a place-name after οὖσιν, since ‘titulus’ might 
here, as in the case of Galatians (adv. A/arc. v. 5) include the address. ‘lhe 
probabilities on the whole are in favour of an inference to the contrary. 
The canonical Ephesians in this case would be originally a general pastorad 
addressed in Paul’s name to Gentile Christians, which Marcion evidently 
identified with the epistle to the Laodiceans. The title πρὸς ᾿Εφέσιους first 
appears in the Muratorian Canon; when it was appended to the epistle 
previously, and whether this addition was derived from the preseice of ἐκ 
Εφέσῳ in 1, remains uncertain. 


If ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in 1! was the original reading, the epistle cannot 
have been written by Paul. Its tone presupposes that the church 
(or rather, the Christian recipients) was persona!ly unknown to 
him (1! 3? 421); there is not the slightest reference to his long 
mission among them; and while Paul could write letters without 
sending greetings, the Thessalonian epistles, e.g., contain definite 
allusions to the apostle’s relations with the church which are 
conspicuous by their absence from Ephesians. In spite of all 
arguments to the contrary (e.g. by Cornely, Henle, Schmidt, 
Rinck in SX., 1849, 948 f.; Alford, and A. Kolbe in his Z%col. 
Comm. tiber das erste Capital des Briefes an die Epheser, Stettin, 
1869), there is no internal evidence to prove that Ephesus was 
the church (or even one of the churches) addressed, and much 
to the contrary. Some Greek commentators, beginning with 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, ingeniously got over the difficulty by 
arguing that Eph. was written before Paul had reached Ephesus 
—a desperate hypothesis which need not be seriously refuted. 
Even when the epistle is attributed to a Pauline disciple, it is not 
probable that ev ᾿Ε φέσῳ (so, ¢.g., K]Opper, 34 f.; and Holtzmann, 
cp. Corssen in ZV IV., 1909, 35f.) was an integral part of the 
address. Paul’s intimate connection with the church of Ephesus 
was notorious, and any one writing in his name must have known 
better than to make him address the Ephesian Christians as if he 
and they had no personal acquaintance (cp. 115 42. To defend 
its originality by postulating the writer’s ignorance of the relation 
between Paul and Ephesus is a four de force of criticism, which 
contradicts, zzter alia, the affinities of the writing with Luke. 

The same considerations tell against the circular-hypothesis 
which regards Ephesus as merely one of the communities for 


302 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


which the epistle was designed. Paul would have made some 
distinction in the body of the epistle between readers well known 
to him and others to whom he was a stranger (as in Col 21); he 
would hardly have grouped the church of Ephesus, or even the 
adjoining churches (to many of which he was personally known, 
cp. Ac 1919 20%), with communities who had no personal con- 
nection with himself. This notion, that Eph. was designed for a 
wider circle of churches than Ephesus, originated with Beza (‘sed 
suspicor non tam ad Ephesios ipsos proprie missam epistolam, 
quam Ephesum ut ad ceteras Asiaticas ecclesias transmitteretur’), 
and was worked up by Ussher into the hypothesis of a circular 
letter, which has been practically the dominant view, ever since, 
of those who hold to the Pauline authorship (so, most recently, 
J. Rutherford, δ. Pauls Epp. to Colosse and Laodicea, 1908 ; 5. J. 
Case, Biblical World, 1911, 315 f.; G. 5. Hitchcock, Ephesians 
an Encyclical of St. Paul, 1913). The further identification of 
Eph. in this form with the letter mentioned in Col 416 (Laodicea 
being one of its recipients) is generally held along with the circular- 
hypothesis. The latter, however, is not free from difficulties. 
Primitive Christian epistles designed for a wide circle of churches 
were composed otherwise (cp. 1 Co 11%, Gal 11); the notion of 
copies with blanks for the local address is not true to ancient 
methods of epistolography ; besides, we should expect traces of 
several readings, and at best the retention of ἐν. If ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ 
had been the original reading in 11, the change to ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ 
becomes unintelligible ; and, vice versa, if ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ was in the 
autograph, Marcion’s change becomes almost inexplicable. As 
none of the conjectural emendations, such as κατ᾽ Ἶριν for 
καὶ πιστοῖς (Ladeuze in RB., 1902, 573-580), or ἔθνεσιν for 
᾿Εφέσω (R. Scott), is probable,* the alternatives are: (a) that the 
place-name was lost at an early period from copies of the 
autograph ; or (4) that 11 originally ran τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ 
πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. When the sub-Pauline date of the 
writing is assumed, the latter theory becomes decidedly superior, 
in spite of the difficulties which attach to the interpretation of 
the words. It is preferable on the whole to take πιστοῖς in the 
sense of faithful rather than of de/ieving ; the latter interpretation 


* Shearer (7. iv. 129) reads τ, 4. τοῖς Ἴωσι (the Ionians), and P. Ewald, 
(VXZ., 1904, 560-568) conjectures ἀγαπητοῖς for ἁγίοις τοῖς (z.¢. ‘ to those who 
are beloved and believing’), while D omits τοῖς (so Zahn) ; but the difficult 
οὖσιν was in Urigen’s text, and there is no reason to suspect its originality. 


EPHESIANS 303 


would most naturally imply Jews who were also Christians, and 
the tenor of the homily tells against this characterisation of its 
audience. 


The advance on Paul’s idea of unity is that Eph. correlates the two con- 
ceptions of Christ’s supremacy and the unity of Christians by running back 
the latter, 2.46. the ideal church’s unity,* to the supremacy of Christ as the 
cosmic and religious head of the universe.. In this way the epistle represents 
the climax of the Pauline development; its theme is ‘‘ not simply the unity 
of the church, but the unity of the church in Jesus Christ supreme. This Paul 
had not preached before” (M. W. Jacobus, 4 Prodlem in NT Criticism, 275). 
The former division of Jew and Gentile is for ever abolished by Jesus Christ, 
whose church constitutes the fina] relationship of man to God; this μυστήριον 
or open secret is hailed as the climax of revelation, and Paul is the chosen 
herald of the message. The writer correctly regards Paul’s work as the pre- 
supposition of the catholic church. The ἑνότης (4% 15, here only) and the 
εἰρήνη of the church, attained as the result of Paul’s propaganda, were due, 
however, not to any diplomatic adjustment of the two parties, but to the full 
and deep apprehension of the meaning of the gospel which Paul proclaimed. 
The author does not disparage (cp. 3°) the other apostles, any more than 
Luke does; on the contrary, he expressly associates the apostles with Paul 
in the promulgation of the church’s universality and unity ; but he insists on 
Paal’s importance for the divine unfolding of that catholic unity which in the 
ourth gospel is run back to the original teaching of Jesus. Similarly the 
problems of freewill and election, which were raised in Romans, are ignored 
in Eph., not because Paul felt now dissatisfied with the answers he had given 
(so Davies, 77.5., 1907, 460), but because this Paulinist moved in a region of 
thought where such idiosyncrasies of the apostle were transcended. 


It seems probable, therefore, so far as probability can be 
reached in a matter of this kind, that the epistle, or rather homily 
in epistolary form, originally had no notice of any church. It 
was a catholicised version of Colossians, written in Paul’s name 
to Gentile Christendom (2?! 3!); the solitary reference to con- 
crete conditions (6?!-22) is adapted from Colossians, in order to lend 
vratsemblance to the writing, and the general traits of the homily 
rank it among the catholic epistles or pastorals of the early church. 
Marcion evidently conjectured that the epistle must be that 
referred to in Col 416, and therefore included it in his Pauline 
canon under the title of πρὸς Aaodixéas. The title πρὸς "Edéauovs, 
with the insertion ἐν "Edéow in 11, was either (a) due to the fact 
that the Pauline canon of the church was drawn up at Ephesus, 


* Cp. Schmiedel in Zz. 3120-3121 (‘‘ From the divine predestination 
of the church in Eph 17° 3? 511 there is but a single step further to that 
of its pre-existence, which is accepted in Hermas, Vs. ii. 4. 1 and in 
2 Clem. 14!”’). 


204 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


where possibly a copy of Ephesians was preserved, and from 
which it was circulated (hence the title; so, ¢g., Haupt and 
Zahn); or (4), as Baur suggested, to an editorial combination of 
621 with 2 Ti 412 (Τυχικὸν δὲ ἀπέστειλα εἰς "Edecov). The latter 
hypothesis does not seem too artificial, especially in view of the 
fact that Ephesus has other links to the circle of Pauline traditions 
in which the epistle to Timotheus and Titus originated. 


8. γ. Period.—The terminus ad quem may be roughly fixed by the echoes 
of the epistle in the later Christian literature. The darkened understanding 
of Clem. Rom. 36? may have been suggested by Eph 48, just as che eyes of 
your heart (Clem. Rom. 59%) seems to echo Eph 118, while Eph 4** is 
reflected in Clem. Rom. 46° (Aave we not one God and one Christ and one 
Spirit of grace shed forth upon us? and one calling in Christ?). If these 
(cp. also Eph 14=Cl. Rom. 64) are, as it seems to the present writer, more 
than coincidences, Ephesians must have been composed some time previous 
to A.D. 96. Twenty years later the existence of the epistle becomes still 
more plain, through the glimpses of it in Ignatius* (e.g. 5% with Polyk. 5! 
love your wives, even as the Lord the church; 1% 216 with Smyrn. 1 2m one 
body of his church, embracing Jews and Gentiles; 47% with Polyk. 17 Zake 
heed to unity—bear with all in love; 51 with Eph. 11 τοῦ let us be zealous to 
be imitators of God in forgiveness and forbearance ; also 3° with ZpA. 19, and 
6131. with Polyk. 67). As disusx1, 1 ἠοῖ More so, is its use by Polykarp (cp. 
Eph 2° with Pol. 1° knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, but 
by the will of God through Jesus Christ ; Eph 476 with Pol. 12! modo, ut his 
scripturis dictum est, Irascimini et nolite peccare, et Sol non occidat super 
iracundiam uestram, etc.). Beyond this it is needless to go down into the 
second century, except to notice the reminiscences (cp. Zahn’s Art des Hermas, 
4121.) in Hermas (¢g. Mand. iii. 1, 4, Stm. ix. 13, 17), its use by the 
Valentinians (cp. Iren. i. 8. 4-5 ; Hipp. vi. 3), and the likelihood that the use 
of 415 κδ΄ in Epiph. 2618 and 34” proves that Eph. as well as Judas was 
known to Marcus, the gnostic founder of the Marcosians, ¢. A.D. 160. To 
judge from Hippolytus (¢.g. v. 7f., vii. 25), it was a favourite among several 
early gnostic sects. 

A second-century date for the composition of the homily (so, formerly, ¢.g., 
Baur, Holtzmann, Mangold, Pfleiderer, Cone, S. Davidson, Rovers’ JWV7. 
pp. 65f., Briickner) is therefore ruled out ; besides, no polemic against either 
Montanism (so, ¢.g., Schwegler, arguing from the emphasis on the Spirit, the 
prophets, etc.) or any phase of gnosticism (so, ¢g., Hilgenfeld, Zzn/. 669 f.) 


* Ignatius describes the Ephesian Christians as ‘initiated together into 
the mysteries with Paul’ (12=Eph 3* ® etc.), ‘who makes mention of you 
in every epistle’—a hyperbole based on 1 Co 168, 2 Ti 1%, 1 Ti 1° ete. 
But it is a fair inference that he did not know ‘ Ephesians’ with its canonical 
address and title. While his letter to Ephesus has traces of ‘ Ephesians,’ it 
never suggests that the latter had special Ephesian associations (cp. Zahn’s 
Ignatius von Antiochien, 607 f.); he does not remind the Ephesians of Paul’s 
letter to them, as Clemens Rom. does the Corinthian church. 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 395 


is audible.! The terminus a quo is fixed by Colossians, which was certainly, 
and 1 Peter which was probably, used by the anonymous autor ad Ephesios. 
Ewald, who regarded Colossians as written by Timotheus under Paul’s super- 
vision, held that Ephesians was composed by a Paulinist between A.D. 75 
and 80, and if the serminus ad quem is extended to c. A.D. 85, this conjecture 
may serve as a working hypothesis for the general period of the writing. 

While the literary relationships fix approximately the date, they throw no 
light on the place of the homily’s composition, except that the traces of its 
circulation in Asia Minor suggest the latter province as its locus. 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS. 


LITERATURE. — (a) Editions — After the fifth century homilies of 
Chrysostom (ed. Field, 1849-1855) and the commentary of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia (ed. H. B. Swete, Cambridge, 1882), no special edition of any 
significance appeared till the Reformation, when Calvin (1549, 1556) 
published his Genevan treatises, and Luther wrote his Annotationes (ed. 
Bruns, Liibeck, 1797) ; see, further, C. Magalianus (Offers hierarchict libri 112, 
etc., Lyons, 1609); Louis de Sotomayor (Paris, 1610); Charles Rapine 
(Paris, 1622); Grotius (Amzotationes, Paris, 1641); J. D. Michaelis 
(Gottingen, 1750); Mosheim (1755); Bengel’s Gromon (1759); Heyden- 
reich, de Pastoralbriefe P. erlautert (1826-1828) * ; Flatt’s Vorlesungen (ed. 
Kling, 1831); C. S. Matthies (1840); Mack? (1841); A. S. Paterson 
(1848) ; Wiesinger (in Olshausen’s Kommentar, vol. v. 1850, Eng. tr., New 
York, 1858); Oosterzee (Bielefeld, 1861); Huther® (Gottingen, 1866); 
Bisping’s Erk/drung (1866); Ewald (1870); Plitt, dée Pastoralbriefe prak- 
tisch ausgelegt (1872); Hofmann (1874); P. Fairbairn (7%e Pastoral Epistles, 
Edin. 1874); J. T. Beck, Erklarung der 2. Briefe P. an Tim. (ed. Linden- 
meyer, 1879) ; Ellicott 5 (1883) * ; Wace and Jackson (Speaker’s Comm. 1881) ; 
Knoke (1887-1889) ; Reuss (1888); Kiibel (in Strack-Zéckler’s Komm. 
1888) ; von Soden? (HC. 1893)*; Knoke* (Lange’s ABzbel-Werk, 1894) ; 
Riggenbach (— Zéckler, 1897) ; A. E. Humphreys (Cambridge Bible, 1897) ; 
J. H. Bernard (( 67. 1899)*; Stellhorn (1900); Horton (C8. 1901); R. 
M. Pope (London, 1901); J. P. Lilley (Edin. 1901); Krukenberg (1901) ; 
Cone (/utern. Hdbks. to NT. 1901); Weiss’? (— Meyer, 1902)* ; Koehler 
(SM7.? 1907); J. E. Belser (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1907) ἢ; N. J. Ὁ. White 
(ZGT. 1910); Wohlenberg? (ZX. 1911) ; E. Bosio (Florence, 1911); M. 
Meinertz (1913); J. Kmabenbauer (Paris, 1913); M. Dibelius (WBNT7. 
1913); E. F. Brown (WC. 1917). 

Also Jerome (fourth century), J. Willichius (Zxfositio brevis et 
familiaris, 1542); D. N. Berdotus (1703); Mosheim (Zrk/arung des Briefe 
an a. Titum, 1779); Kuinoel (Explicatio ep. Pauli ad Titum, 1812); and J. 
S. Howson (Smith’s DZ. iii. 1520-1521) on Titus ; Caspar Cruciger (1542); 
C. Espencaeus (/n priorem ep. ad Tim. commentarius et digressiones, Paris, 


1 Baur’s contention was that Eph. voices, instead of opposing, gnosticism, 
and that it dates from a time ‘‘ when the gnostic ideas were just coming into 
circulation, and still wore the garb of innocent speculation” (Pau/, Eng. tr. 
ii. 22), 


396 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


1561); Melanchthon (EZxarratio epist. P. ad Tim. et duorum capitum 
secund@, 1561); Tilemann Heshusius (comm. in priorem epist. P. ad Tim. 
1582); Gerhard (adnotationes in I P. ad Tim. epistolam, 1643); A. C. 
Fleischmann (1791); J. A. L. Wegscheider (1810); M. G. E. Leo (Pauli 
epist. 7 ad Tim. cum comm. perpetuo, Leipzig, 1837); Kolling (Der 7 Brief 
P. an Tim. aufs neue untersucht und ausgelegt, 1882-7); Liddon (1897) ; 
and Sir W. M. Ramsay (Zxf.7 1908f.) on 1 Tim. ; C. Espencaeus (Paris, 
1564) ; J. B. Rembowski (1752); M. G. E. Leo (1850); Bahnsen, die sog. 
Pastoralbriefe, I. der II Tim. (1876)* on 2 Tim. ; with Mosheim (Zrk/arung 
der beyden Briefe des Ap. Pauli an den Timotheum, Hamburg, 1755), and 
Plumptre (Smith’s DJA. iii. 1507-1572) on 1 and 2 Tim. 

(ὁ) Studies—(i.) general:—P. Anton (Zxegetésche Abhandlungen der 
Pastoralbriefe, 1753); van den Es (Pauli ad Titum epistola cum etusdem ad 
Tim. epp. composita, Leyden, 1819); L. R. Rolle (De authentia epist. 
pastoralium, 1841); Scharling (Die neuesten Untersuchungen tiber die sog. 
Pastoralbriefe, 1846) ; A. Saintes, Etudes critiques sur les trois lettres past. 
attribuées ἃ S. Paul (1852); Schenkel (BZ. iv. 393-402); Sabatier (2.5.3. 
x. 250-259); Ginella, De authentia epist. pastoralium (Breslau, 1865) ; 
Pfleiderer’s Paulinismus (Eng. tr. ii. 196-214); J. R. Boise, Zhe epp. of 
Paul written after he became a prisoner (New York, 1887); Plummer 
(Expositor’'s Bible, 1888); Hesse, Die Entstehung d. NT Hirtenbriefe 
(1889) ; Bourquin, étude critique sur les past. épitres (1890); Hatch (Z2.', 
“ Pastorals’); Harnack (4CZ. ii. 1. 480-485, 710-711); Moffatt (2&2. 
5079-5096); W. Lock (DBZ. iv. 768f.); Jacquier (JVZ. i. 353, 414); 
R. Scott, Zhe Pauline Epistles (1909), pp. 128f., 329f.; R. A. Falconer 
(DAC, ii. 583f.). (ii.) specially against the Pauline authorship of one or 
all :—Schleiermacher (ter den sog. ersten Brief des P. an den Tim., Ein krit. 
Sendschreiben an Gass, Berlin, 1807 ; cp. his Werke zu Theol. ii. 221-239) ; 
Baur, die sogen. Pastoralbriefe (1835)*; Schenkel, Chréstusbild d. Apostel 
(162f.); Schwegler (VZ. ii. 138-153); H. J. Holtzmann, ae Pastoralbriefe 
hritisch. u. exegetisch behandelt (1880)*; Renan, iii. pp. xxiii-liii, v. 
(ch. vi.); Pfleiderer (Urc. iii. 373f.); W. Briickner, Chron. 277-286; 
Weizsicker, AA. ii. 163 f., 259f.; M. A. Rovers, Mzeuw-test. Letterkunde* 
(1888), 66-78; J. Réville, Les origines de episcopat, i. 262f.; E. Y. 
Hincks, JBL. (1897) 94-117; von Soden (JV7Z. 305f.); Gould (W77A. 
142f.); McGiffert (44. 398, 423); E. Vischer (Dze Paulusbriefe, 1904, 
74-80) ; Knopf, ΔΖ. 32, 300f.; Baljon, 77. pp. 150-174; A. S. Peake, 
(INT. 68-71) ; Wendland (HBNT. i. 2. 364f.); H. H. Mayer, Ueder d. 
Pastoralbriefe (1913) ; F. Koehler (Die Pastoralbriefe, 1914). (111.} Schleier- 
macher was answered by Planck (Bemerkungen tiber den ersten Brief an Tim. 
1808) ; Baur by M. Baumgarten (ae Echthett d. Pastoralbriefe, Berlin, 1837) 
and Matthies (1840) ; the traditional view was maintained by Good, Azthent. 
des épitres past. (Montauban, 1848) ; Dubois, étude critique sur Pauthent, de 
la premiére ép. ἃ Tim. (1856); and Doumergue (Yauthenticité 1 Tim. 1856) ; 
but especially by T. Rudow, de argum. hist. quibus epp. past. origo Paulina 
impugnata est (1852); C. W. Otto, de geschichtlichen Verhdltnisse der 

1 Said to be the first German work where the name ‘pastorals’ can be 
found applied to these epistles, 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 307 


Pastoralbriefe, 1860); M. J. Cramer ( 78., 1887, pp. 3f.); Bertrand, essaz 
critique sur Pauthentictté des ép. Past. (1888); G. G. Findlay * (Appendix to 
Eng, tr. of Sabatier’s L’apdtre Paul, pp. 341-402); Hort, Chréstian Ecclesia 
(1898), 189-217, and A. Ruegg (Aus Schrift u. Geschichte, 1898, pp. 59- 
108)*; followed by Roos, de Briefe des apost. Paulus u. die Reden des 
Herrn Jesu (156-202); G. H. Gilbert, Student's Life of Paul (1899), 225- 
232; J. W. Falconer, From Afostle to Priest (1900), 109-146; W. E. Bowen 
(Dates of Past. Letters, 1900); G. G. Findlay (Hastings’ DZ. iii. 714f.); 
W. M. Ramsay (CRE. pp. 248f., Ax.* viii. r10f. etc.); R. Ὁ. Shaw 
(Pauline epp.* pp. 423 f.); T. C. Laughlin (7%e Pastoral Epp. in the Light of 
one Roman Imprisonment, California, 1905); R. J. Knowling ( Zestimony of 
St. Paul to Christ*, 1906, pp. 121-147); J. D. James (Genuineness and 
Authorship of Past. Epp., 1906); CQR. (1907) 63-86, 344-358; Barth 
(INT. § 14); Zahn (JWV7. §§ 33-37)*; A. Maier (Hauptprobleme d. P.- 
Briefe, 1911); C. Bruston (R7QR. xxii. 248f., 441 f.); V. Bartlet (Axp.8 
. 28 ff.); Edmundson (Ure. 160f.). (iv.) on special points :—Beckhaus, 
Specimen observationum de vocabulis ἅπαξ rey. et rartoribus dicendi formulis 
in prima epistola Paulina ad Tim. (1810); Ad. Curtius, de tempore guo prior 
epist. Tim. exarata sit (1828); G. Bohl, wer die Zeit der Abfassung und die 
Paulin. Charakter der Briefe an Tim. u. Tit. (Berlin, 1829, conservative) ; 
W. Mangold (Dze /rriehrer der Pastoralbriefe, Marburg, 1856) ; Eylau, Zur 
Chronologie der Pastoralbriefe (1888) ; E. Belin, étude sur les tend. hérétiques 
combattues dans les &p. past. (1865); Hilgenfeld (ZW7., 1880, 448-464) ; 
Havet, /e Christianisme et ses origines, iv. 376-380 (1884) ; Henri Bois, 727. 
(1888) 145-160; Clemen, Zzmheztlichkett d. Paulin. Briefe (1894), 142-176; 
A. Klopper, ZWT,. (1902) 339-361 (‘ Zur Christologie der Pastoralbriefe’) ; 
W. Lutgert, Dze Irrlehrer d. Pastoralbriefe (BFT. xiii. 3, 1909) ; Moffatt 
(ZB." xxvi. 991 f.). 

§ 1. Order.—In addition to πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους, three epistles 
addressed to Timotheus (πρὸς Τιμόθεον A, B) and Titus (πρὸς 
Τίτον) appear in the canon under the name of Paul. As these titles 
did not form part of the original autographs, the early church, 
which took them as written within Paul’s lifetime, naturally argued 
from the internal evidence that 2 Tim., with its richer individual 
references, reflected the last phase of the apostle’s career, and 
that 1 Tim. was earlier. When the epistles are recognised to 
belong to a sub-Pauline period,! a comparative study of their 
contents indicates that 2 Tim. is the earliest of the three, and 
1 Tim. the furthest from Paul (so, e¢g., Mangold, de Wette, 
Reuss, Za Bible, vii. 243 f., 703 f.; Baur, Holtzmann, von Soden, 
Harnack, Pfleiderer, Rovers, Bourquin, Briickner, 5. Davidson, 
Beyschlag, McGiffert, Clemen, Schmiedel, Jilicher, R. Scott, 


1Cp. Lock, D&. iv. 784: ‘On this latter supposition the priority of 
Titus to 1 Tim. would seem almost certain, as there would be so little reason 
for the same writer composing it if 1 Tim. were in existence, and intended as 
8. general treatise.” 


398 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


and Koehler); cp. ΜΖ. 559-561. The more advanced 
situation of 1 Tim. is betrayed by its sharper emphasis on 
ecclesiastical procedure; 6.9. πίστις in its objective sense 
occurs four times in 1 Tim., once in Titus, never in 
2 Tim. ; σωτήρ of God* only occurs in 1 Tim.; the ὑγιαίνουσα 
διδασκαλία is elevated to an extraordinary positiont in 1 Ti 
119 and τινὲς ἄνθρωποι or τινες is confined to 1 Tim. (seven 
times). 2 Ti 21720 is presupposed in 1 Ti 1”, and there is 
a heightening scale in 2 Ti 2%=Tit 39=1 Ti τὸ 2 Ti m= 
τ 2% 2 113: -ἰ Ti 4, and Tit 17=1 Ti 32) When the 
author wrote 2 Tim., he must have had some Pavline materials 
or sources at his command ; this preponderates to a lesser degree 
in Titus; but in 1 Tim., where he is more of an author and less 
of an editor, the Pauline background of reminiscences and tra- 
ditions recedes before the tendency of the writer to emphasise 
the authority rather than the personality of the apostle, to 
become more severe towards the errorists, and to elaborate 
the details of ecclesiastical organisation and discipline. In this 
respect the superiority of 2 Tim. is fairly obvious, and the proba- 
bility is that superiority here is equivalent to priority. 

1 Tim. was the first to rouse the suspicions of critics (J. E. C. Schmidt, 
Einl. i. 257 ἴ. ; Schleiermacher), and it is assigned to a post-Pauline date 
even by some who incline to accept 2 Tim. as a composition of Paul (so, ¢.g., 
Loffler, Kleine Schriften, ii. 216f. ; Neander, Bleek, and Heinrici, Der ἐξ, 
Charakter d. neutest. Schriften, 1908, 64). Were it not for 1 Tim., it 
might be plausible to seek room for the other two within the lifetime of Paul, 
but all three hang together, and they hang outside the historical career of the 
apostle. The critical position underlying the following pages is that while 
the three epistles are, in Coleridge’s phrase, ἐπιστολαὶ Παυλοειδεῖς, they are 
pseudonymous compositions of a Paulinist who wrote during the period of 
transition into the neo-catholic church of the second century, with the aim 
of safeguarding the common Christianity of the age in terms of the great 
Pauline tradition. He knew Paul’s epistles and venerated his gospel, but 


* In contrast to the gnostic antithesis between God the Creator and God 
the Saviour. 

+ As an antithesis to parricide, matricide, and other abnormal vices. 
‘This is so unnatural an application of the term that we can hardly believe 
that Paul himself used it in such a connection, but rather another writer who 
imitated the Pauline expression ” (Bleek, 77. ii. 85-86). 

t Heinrici writes: ‘‘der zweite Timotheusbrief wohl von Paulus selbst 
verfasst ist, wihrend dem Titus und dem ersten Timotheusbrief Weisungen 
des Paulus tiber Gemeindeorganisation, Gottesdienst, Lehre und sittliche 
Pflichten der Gemeindeleiter zugrunde liegen, welche in Briefform gefasst 
sind.” Bruston also makes Paul write 2 Tim. first, 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 399 


he had also access to some Pauline veliguie as well as to traditions which are 
not represented in Luke’s history. The pastorals, especially 2 Tim., are 
composite, and they show further traces of subsequent accretion, It is 
unlikely that these writings were nothing more than the products of a later 
Paulinist’s inventive imagination, working on the book of Acts and the 
Pauline jetters. Many of the details, ¢.g. the references to Paul’s cloak and 
books (2 Tim 413.18), are too circumstantial and concrete to be explained 
upon any such hypothesis (cp. Conybeare’s Myth, Magic, and Religion, 
p. xvi). No theory of verisimilitude accounts for them, any more than for 
the numerous allusions to apostolic figures, which place them in a different 
light from that of the earlier traditions. Furthermore, as has often been 
urged (cp. Lemme, pp. 7f., and Krenkel, pp. 449f.) with true historical 
insight, the very discrepancies and roughness in the various situations pre- 
supposed throughout the epistles, especially in 2 Tim., are enough to indicate 
that the writer had nota free hand. He was not sketching a purely imaginary 
set of circumstances, but working up materials which were not always quite 
tractable. 

The apocryphal reference in 2 Ti 3° (cp. Bz. 2327 f., Charles’ Apocrypha 
and Pseud. ii. 811) threw suspicions on that epistle at an early date: ‘item 
quod ait sicut Jannes et Mambres restiterunt Most non inuenitur in publicis 
scripturis sed in libro secreto qui suprascribitur Iannes et Mambres liber. 
Unde ausi sunt quidam epistolam ad Timotheum repellere, quasi habentem in 
se textam alicuius secreti; sed non potuerunt’ (Origen, 2” A/atth, ser. 117). 
This, however, was a passing curiosity of early criticism. The reasons for 
the widespread reaction (since Eichhorn) against the traditional hypothesis 
of the pastorals are based on their diction, theological and ecclesiastical 
standpoint, and ecclesiastical tendencies. The sub-Pauline elements are 
decisive for a date later than any in Paul’s lifetime. But any arguments in 
favour of the hypothesis that Paul wrote these letters will be best met 
indirectly, in the course of a positive statement of the other position, 


§ 2. Contents.—(a) In the first part of 2 Tim. (1!~218) the 
emphasis falls on suffering with and for the gospel as a note 
of genuine Christianity. The greeting (1!) is followed by a 
thanksgiving for Timotheus’ unfeigned faith, and an exhortation 
against being ashamed of Paul and the Pauline gospel in their 
hour of adversity. Paul urges his own example to the contrary 
(112), together with the example of a brave Asiatic Christian, 
Onesiphorus (115-18), This Pauline gospel, of which endurance 
is a leading feature, Timotheus as Paul’s deputy is to teach (21*) 
to his subordinate agents, and to practise himself (235), with the 
certainty of ultimate success and reward (2*18). The second 
section of the epistle lays stress on the wordy, bitter, and barren 
controversies which endanger this trust and tradition (2146), 
Their immoral consequences and methods are hotly exposed 
(3:5); then Timotheus is warned, by Paul’s own example (3195), 


400 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


that suffering not ease is the mark of the true gospel, and that 
innovations (3155) are to be eschewed. After solemnly laying 
this charge on him (41°), Paul speaks of his own position (4%), 


and the letter closes with a number of private and personal 
data. 


The author evidently means the epistle to be taken as sent by Paul from 
his Roman imprisonment (cp. 48=Ph 1% 217) to Timotheus at some unknown 
place (perhaps in Asia Minor, 115-18), For an attempt to explain 415 as an 
allusion to Paul’s defence before Felix, see Krenkel’s Bettrage, pp. 424f., 
442f. ; Kreyenbiihl’s Zug/m d. Wahrhett (1900), i. 213 f., and (see above, 
p. 138) Erbes in ZVW., 1909, 128f., 195f., with Spitta’s Ure. i. 37f. But 
(see above, p. 169) the reference is obviously to the first stage of the Roman 
trial (cp. Ph 1); in any case it does not imply acquittal and release 
(Zahn). Dr. T. C. Laughlin (see below) is obliged to refer the first defence 
to a supposed trial of Paul before the Ephesian courts (Ac 19%), which is 
even more improbable. 

Bahnsen ingeniously analyses the epistle thus: 2°18 develops 25, 214-2 
develops 2‘, and 31. (δ) develops 2°. Otto’s classification attempts to arrange 
the contents under the three notes of the πνεῦμα in 17. 

For a textual discussion of 213, cp. Resch’s Paulinismus, pp. 258-259. 
The μεμβράναι of 413 were probably pugillares membrane? or sheets for 
private memoranda. The βιβλία may have included the Logia or evangelic 
scriptures from which 1 Ti 518 is quoted (so Resch); but this is a mere 
conjecture. See, generally, Birt’s Das Antike Buchwesen, pp. 50f., 88f. ; 
Nestle’s Zzz/. 39 f., and Zahn’s GX. ii. 938-942. 


(4) The construction of the epistle to Titus is simpler and 
more lucid than that of the other two pastorals. After the 
greeting (1+), Paul discusses the rules for the conduct of 
presbyters or bishops in Crete, in view of current errors and 
local vices (1516), He then sketches ‘the sound doctrine’ 
which Titus is to inculcate on aged men (21:2) and women (2°), 
younger men (2°) and slaves (23:10), in the light of what God’s 
grace demands (211-16) from all Christians. This is enlarged and 
enforced (31:11), in view of the position of Christians towards 
the outside world; instead of worldliness or wrangling, ethical 
superiority is to be the aim of all believers. Then, with a brief 
personal message (312:16), the epistle ends. 


The literary setting goes back to some early tradition which associated 
a Pauline mission, under Titus, with Crete; the island, owing to its 
position, was a favourite wintering-place for vessels (cp. Ramsay, Pauline 
and other Studies, 1907, 76), and, in the absence of all information about 


* On the sub-Pauline tone of 3°, cp. Sokolowski’s Gezst und Leben bet 
Paulus (1903), 108f. ; on 3°", 2.χ2.ὃ xi. 137 f 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 401 


the origin of Cretan Christianity, it is ἃ reasonable conjecture that Paul may 
have touched at Crete during one of his voyages even prior (cp. 315 15 with 
Ac 20°) to Ac 278%, There was a strong Jewish element in the population, 
which seems to explain the local allusions in 11 3%. On the original basis, 
in Epimenides, for the harsh attack upon the Cretan character, cp. Rendel 
Harris in £xf.’ iii. 332 f., 8} χῤ.8 ix. 29f., and above, p. 35. 

(c) 1 Tim. is more discursive and miscellaneous than 2 Tim., 
but the practical, ecclesiastical motive of the epistle (316 ταῦτά 
σοι γράφω... iva εἰδῇς πῶς Set ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι) is 
fairly obvious throughout its somewhat desultory contents. After 
the greeting (11:3), Paul contrasts (13:17) the methods and aims 
of some contemporary antinomians at Ephesus with ‘the sound 
doctrine’ of his own gospel, of which Timotheus (118-2) is the 
natural heir. The writing then passes forward into the first 
(2-3) of its two sections. Regulations are given for various 
sides of church-life: (a) for whom (215) and by whom (2581) 
prayer is to be offered—the latter direction drifting* into a 
word on the subordination of women ; and (6) the qualifications 
of ἐπίσκοποι (37-8), deacons and deaconesses (3913). The closing 
words of the section (31416) imply that such care for the 
worship and organisation of the church as a pillar and prop of 
the truth cannot wholly prevent moral aberrations and heresies ; 
hence the second section (4-6) deals with Timotheus’ attitude 
towards such ascetic errors (4}-5- 6-10. 11-16) + as well as towards 
individual members of the church (51:2), particularly widows 
(55:10) presbyters (517), and slaves (612). A sharp word 
follows (68:10) on the errorists who made their religion a profitable 
trade, and with a solemn charge to the ‘man of God,’ the 
epistle closes in a doxology (611-16), The postscript contains a 
charge for wealthy Christians (611-19), and a warning for Timotheus 
himself against contemporary γνῶσις (670-21), 

In 5/8, where an OT quotation lies side by side with a NT saying, the 
latter must be taken as equally from ἡ γραφή. It is artificial to conjecture 


that a logion of Jesus has been loosely appended to the former. By the 
time the author of the pastorals wrote, either Luke’s gospel or some evan- 


* The inner connection, such as it is, between 3% and what precedes, 
probably is to be found in the thought of worship suggesting the qualifica- 
tions of those who presided over it. 

f On 435 (τῇ ἀναγνώσει), see Glaue, Die Vorlesung heiligen Schriften im 
Gottesdienste (1907), pp. 35-38. 

$Konnecke (827. xii. 1. 31-32) proposes to rearrange 5" thus: 5* 
δ. 4. 8. 6. 1 


26 


402 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


zelic collection containing Lk 107 was reckoned as γραφή. This would be 
partially, but only partially, explained if Luke were the author, in whole or 
part, of the pastorals (see below, p. 414). 


§ 3. Structure—The more or less loose connection of the 
three epistles and the frequent abruptness or awkwardness of 
transition between successive passages, naturally suggest a re- 
course in the first instance to the hypothesis of transposition or 
redaction. The results, however, do not of themselves point to 
any satisfactory solution of the literary problem. 


Tit 17° certainly appears to be a marginal gloss (so O. Ritschl, 7ZZ., 
1885, 609; Knoke, pp. 227 f.; Harnack, ACZ. 710 f., and McGiffert, cp. 
EBi. 5091), breaking the connection between 1° (ἀνυπότακτα) and 17° 
(εἰσὶν γὰρ πολλοὶ ἀνυπότακτοι) ; it may have been added subsequently by the 
author himself (cp. 1 Ti 3%) or inserted by a later editor interested in the 
monarchical episcopate.* Similarly 1 Ti 5% has probably got displaced (cp. 
EBi. 5080) from between 48 and 45 (Holtzmann), or 4! and 48 (Bois, 
Konnecke), the motive of the change (unless it was accidental) being the desire 
of some copyist to qualify ἁγνόν. It is scarcely adequate to treat it merely 
as parenthetical, or (with Owen) to place it after 5% Knatchbull and 
Bakhuyzen prefer to omit it entirely as a later gloss, while Calvin and 
Heydenreich suggested that 57°? was written on the margin originally. 
More drastically P. Ewald (Probabclia betr. den Texte des 1 Tim. 1901) 
conjectures that by an accidental displacement of the p/agu/e or leaves in the 
original copy 1 Ti 1157 has been displaced from between 12 and 1%, and 
34-4! from after 67; which certainly smoothes out the roughness of the 
transition 7 at various points. The awkward transitions in 3!”!? have also 
suggested a textual irregularity which has been variously cured, e.g. by the 
deletion of 312 (Naber, A/nemosyne, 1878, 371), or its removal to a place 
between 3° and 3}0 (Knoke omitting 3", Hesse putting 315 between 3) and 
3"). 4% is also awkward in its present site, but it need not be an interpola- 
tion (Bois, Baljon), though ‘‘it is very probable that the Pastoral Epistles 
[especially 1 Tim.] contain many interpolations in which statements about 
errors and even directions about discipline have been somewhat altered to 
suit the requirements of the middle of the second century. This is what 
would naturally happen to a document which was used, as we know these 
epistles were used, for a manual of ecclesiastical procedure” (Lindsay, 
Church and Ministry in Early Centuries*, 141). 


*Clemen (Einheitlichkeit, pp. 157f.) and Hesse (pp. 148f., who 
begins at 18) extend the interpolation to the close of v.'!, on inadequate 
grounds, The connection between vv." and 12 is quite good, and there 
is no real difficulty about Epimenides being styled a prophet loosely 
after v1, 

{ Better than the transposition of 118 to a place between 18 and 1° 
(Bois), which leaves too large a gap between νομοδιδάσκαλοι (1°) and the 
allusions to the law in 19, although it gives a good connection between the 
charge of τι" and 138, 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 403 


On a closer examination into their literary unity, the epistles, 
and especially 2 Tim., at once reveal different strata. Thus in 
2 Tim., 115-18 and 31°12 are plainly erratic boulders as they lie; 
both interrupt the context, and both contain material * which 
is genuinely Pauline. The same holds true of 49.235, possibly 
even of 4°24 in the main, within which 115-18 is sometimes held 
to have originally lain (after 41° McGiffert, after 418 Knoke). 
But even 4) %228 js not homogeneous, although it is easier to 
feel differences of time and temper within its contents than to 
disentangle and place the various elements of which it is 
composed.j ‘Thus v.4* (Zuke alone is with me) hardly seems 
consonant with v.2!> (Zubulus salutes thee, and so do Pudens 
and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brothers); if Timotheus was 
to rejoin Paul at once (vv.®% 21), it is not easy to see how he 
could devote himself to the local discharge of the duties laid 
on him in 1&4 (cp. Simcox, ZZ. x. 430-432, on the unlikeli- 
hood that the commissions and cautions of 413-15- 21-228 could have 
come froma dying man). Such phenomena tf have led to schemes 
of reconstruction which attempt to solve the complexity of the 
epistles’ structure by recourse to partition-methods, especially in 
the case of 2 Tim. The presumably authentic material is 
analysed, ¢.g., as follows. (@) von Soden: 117: 8-5. Τί. 15-18 (21. 8-124 1) 
46-19. 21-22 — ἃ genuine letter written from the close of the Roman 
imprisonment. (4) McGiffert: 1118 (except 19> 1214) (21. 8-18") 
4-2 5-8. 16-19. 210, 10 written towards the end of his imprisonment 
and life, a complete epistle, ‘his dying testament’ to the favour- 
ite disciple who was to carry on his work at Ephesus. (ὦ 
Dr. T. C. Laughlin: 45.215 (a note written from Macedonia, 
shortly after Ac 201), the rest of 2 Tim. written after Philip- 
pians from Rome. (d) Hausrath (iv. 162 f.): 11518+ 4918 like 
Phil 3!-4, written soon after his arrival in Rome, the former 
after his first trial. Other analysists find incorporated in 2 Tim. 
a fragment written from the Cesarean imprisonment: 6.5. (a) 
Hitzig (Ueber Johannes Marcus, 1843, 154 f.), who distinguishes 


* Lemme (Das echte Ermahnungsschreiben des Ap. Paulus an Tim. 1882), 
Hesse, and Krenkel needlessly omit 11° 188, 

Τ Ewald assigned vv.*!7 and 12 to Rome, vv.1%-5 to Macedonia, during 
Paul’s third tour from Ephesus. 

{It is more natural, in the majority of cases, to explain these internal 
discrepancies as the result of accretion, when different notes (see above, p. 41} 
have been fused together, than as /apsus memoria or calamt. 


404 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


such a note (115 418-16. 20-228) from another written during the 
Roman captivity (451% 19. 116-18 422b ¢ 4p, 63); (ὁ) Bacon (Story 
of St. Paul, 196 f.), who regards 4% 11-18. 20-218 gs probably com- 
posed during the two years at Czsarea ;* (ὦ Clemen (Paulus, i. 
405 f.), who places 418, together with Colossians and Philemon 
(a.D. 59-60), in this period (a.p. 61), 11518 falling in the Roman 
captivity (A.D. 62) previous to Philippians, whilst 419228 was 
written after 1 Cor. from Corinth in a.p. 57 (of. ct. p. 354); and 
(4) Krenkel (Bettrage zur Aufhellung der Geschichte u. der Briefe 
des Apostel Paulus, 1890, pp. 395-468), who addresses 4958 from 
Cesarea to Timotheus at or near Troas, subsequently to Colos- 


sians and Philemon, 4! + 11617. 18> + 421 being written from the 
Roman imprisonment. 


The net result of such investigations is tentative. Beyond the general 
fact that the author had some reléguze Pauline f¢ at his disposal, and that 
the internal evidence here and there suggests the incorporation of such notes 
by one who felt justified in working up such materials, we can hardly go 
with very much confidence. One of the most elaborate and least convincing 
recent reconstructions is proposed by Hilgenfeld (ZW7., 1897, 1-86), vzz. 
that 2 Tim. has been worked over by an anti-Marcionite redactor, who also 
edited Titus in the interests of orthodox doctrine (in 1}. 12-184 218 310-11) and 
revised (pp. 32 f.) later in the second century the post-Pauline original of 
1 Tim, (= 113: 12-17 21:6. 8-15 31-16 49-11 413_518a 519-22. 24-25) which had sought 
to commend the monarchical episcopate. 


Titus, on the other hand, presents less difficulty. It is 
probably sub-Pauline, and the alternatives seem to be (a) 
either a genuine note of Paul worked up by a later disciple, who 
was responsible for 1 Tim. at least, or (ὁ) an epistle based on 


* The rest of 2 Tim., with some interpolations (e.g. 113 230-26) is regarded 
as written subsequently to Philippians (pp. 375 f.). Bottger dated the whole 
epistle from the Cesarean period of imprisonment, with 1 Tim. from Patara 
(Ac 21") or Miletus (Ac 2077). The change of Μιλήτῳ into Μελίτῃ (so, eg., 
Baronius, Beza, Grotius, Knoke, Bahnsen) would date 2 Tim. or this part of 
it from the Roman imprisonment (cp. Ac 281); but the textual evidence is 
slight, and Trophimus is not mentioned by Luke (Ac 27?) in this con- 
nection. 

¢ The preservation of such private notes, as, ¢.g. in the cases of the 
correspondence between Vergil and Augustus, Cicero and Atticus (cp. Peters, 
Der Brief in der rimischen Literatur, 1901, 27 f., 78 f.), was all the more 
likely, since Paul was the first ‘man of letters’ in the primitive church, and 
since the extant canonical collection represented only part of his actual 
correspondence. Private notes would be more apt to remain overlooked 
than others, unless, like the letter of recommendation to Phoebe, they were 
attached by later editors to some larger epistle (p. 139). 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 405 


one or two genuine fragments of the apostle’s correspondence. 
The former class of theories is represented by Hesse (pp. 150 f.), 
who finds rf. 5-6. 12-184. 16 31-7. 12-18. 15 4 genuinely Pauline note, 
written shortly after he left Crete, and worked up by a Paulinist 
who inserted the warnings against heresy; by von Soden (1): * 
312-15), and by McGiffert (116* 31-7 1218, written before Paul’s 
stay of three months at Corinth, Ac 20°). The alternative, 
which seems more probable (so nearly all the critical editors), 
is that the writer was drawing upon some ancient and even 
authentic tradition connecting Titus with Crete during Paul’s 
lifetime, and that 312, which is likely to be genuine (so Weisse, 
Hase, Ewald, etc.), has been preserved from that tradition. 
Most allow that the historical site for such a fragment and tradi- 
tion lies in the neighbourhood of Ac 203, Krenkel, e¢.g., dating it 
(16. Tit 312, 2 Ti 42°, Tit 31%) perhaps from Illyria during the 
apostle’s second journey to Corinth (Ac 201%), Clemen (Paulus, 
i. 399 f., ii. 233-234) similarly from Macedonia after 2 Co το-- 
13, 1-9, and previous to Romans (A.D. 59). 

1 Tim., again, yields even less to the partition-theories. No 
fragment can be referred with any confidence to the apostle. 
The incidental allusions to Paul’s personality (3!4f 418) merely 
betray the writer’s consciousness that there was a certain awk- 
wardness in such elaborate commissions and instructions upon 
the commonplace regulations of a Christian community being 
addressed to one who was not merely himself in mature life, but 
ex hypothest separated only for a time from his superintendent. 
In such touches we can feel the author’s literary conscience and his 
tactful attempt to preserve the vraisemb/ance of the situation, but 
there is nothing to indicate the presence of any definite note 
from the apostle. As it stands, the ep. is a unity, though 211-15 
reads like a gloss (Hesse, Knoke), 418 parts easily from its 
context, and the οὖν of 2! is a loose transition. More than the 
other two epistles, it breathes from first to last the atmosphere 
in which the editor or author of all the three lived and moved. 
It is a free and fairly homogeneous composition, not constructed 
(as Schleiermacher suggested) simply out of the two previous 
epistles, but with a content and cachet of its own. On the 
other hand, the literary structure of its paragraphs shows that 
it has suffered accretion after it was originally composed, e.g. 
in 617-214, possibly also in 3118 517-20 (222) besides the marginal 
glosses in 3! and 57%. When 617. is thus taken as a later 


4006 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


addition (Harnack, Knopf in ΔΖ. 305-306), the allusion in 
ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως may be to Marcion’s well- 
known volume. Otherwise the use of 1 Tim. in Polykarp (see 
below), besides the inappropriateness of 17 (Tit. 110) to the 
Marcionites, rule out the Tiibingen view that the pastorals 
were directly anti-Marcionite pamphlets. Thus Hort (JC. 
113 f.) prefers, with several recent critics, to explain the 
ἀντιθέσεις as Jewish casuistical decisions, the yeveaAoyiat of 14 
and Tit 3° being the legendary pedigrees of Jewish heroes, such 
as swarm in the book of Jubilees and elsewhere (cp. Wohlenberg, 
pp. 31 f.). 

Hesse (οὔ. czt.), assuming that the Ignatian epistles were written under 
Marcus Aurelius, finds a genuine Pauline letter in 1110. 18-20 41-16 68-16. 201. 
Knoke (af. ct.) similarly disentangles an epistle to Tim. from Corinth (15% 18-2 
21-10 4? Beast 4c-6. 11-15. 19-23. a), and one from Cresarea (a aoe phe 13-16 
QI2-15 ςτί. 617-19 75-11 62-16. 20f-) from editorial work of a second-century redactor. 
But the comparative evenness of the style is almost enough (Z&z. 5093) to 
invalidate such hypotheses. 


§ 4. Literary characteristics.—(a) The pastorals contain a 
number of terms which are common to them and to the other 
Pauline epistles; but some of these cannot be described as 
distinctively Pauline, while others are due to the fact that the 
writer was composing in Paul’s name. The significant feature 
of the terminology, as of the thought, is its difference from 
Paul’s. The similarities are neither so numerous nor so 
primary as the variations, and the latter point to a writer who 
betrays the later milieu of his period in expression as well as in 
conception.* 

A study of the Greek vocabulary shows not only that the very greeting is 
un-Pauline, but that there is a significant absence of many characteristically 
Pauline terms, ¢.g. ἄδικος, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀποκαλύπτειν, διαθήκη, δικαίωμα, 
ἐλεύθερος, ἐνεργεῖν, κατεργάζεσθαι, καυχᾶσθαι, μείζων, μικρός, μωρία, παρά- 
δοσις, πατὴρ ἡμῶν, πείθειν, περιπατεῖν (for which, as for στοιχεῖν, ἀνασ- 
τρέφειν is substituted), περισσεύειν, πράσσειν (for which the author substitutes 
ποιεῖν), σῶμα, υἱοθεσία, τέλειος, and χαρίζεσθαι. Furthermore, the author 
has a favourite vocabulary of his own, full of compounds and Latinisms, 
with new groups of words (cp. those in @ privative, διδασκ-, εὐσεβ-, olko-, 
σωῴφρ-, φιλο-, etc.) and an unwonted predilection for others (¢.g. those in 


* So especially the philologist, Th. Nageli (Der Wortschatz des Aposteis 
Paulus, 1905, 85 f.), whose evidence is all the more important as this is the 
only point where he admits that the linguistic phenomena are adverse to the 
Pauline authorship of any of the canonical epistles. 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 407 


kado-).* As compared with Paul, he employs the definite article less 
frequently ; unlike the apostle, he uses μήποτε and δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν (thrice), and 
eschews ἀντὶ, dpa, ἄχρι, διό, διότι, ἔμπροσθεν, ἔπειτα, ἔτι, ἰδοῦ, παρά (accus.), 
σύν, and ὥστε. The difference in the use of the particles is one of the most 
decisive proofs of the difference between Paul and this Paulinist (cp. CQR., 
1903, 428f., and Bonhoffer’s Zpzktet und NT. 201 f.). 


(4) These characteristics of the writer’s diction are corrobor- 
ated by the qualities of his style. It is hardly too much to say 
that upon the whole, when the total reach and range of the 
epistles are taken into consideration, the comparative absence of 
rugged fervour, the smoother flow of words, and the heaping up 
of epithets, all point to another sign-manual than that of Paul. 
Even more than in Ephesians, the Pauline impetuousness and 
incisiveness are missing. ‘‘ Le style des pastorales . . . est lent, 
monotone, pésant, diffus, décousu: en certaines parties, terne 
et incolore” (Jacquier, 7277. i. 366). ‘The syntax is stiffer 
and more regular . . . the clauses are marshalled together, and 
there is a tendency to parallelism” (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 
p. 402). ‘‘ Die rhetorischen Mangel von Eph. sind den Briefen 
fremd. Die Bilder sind correct. Doch zeigt sich in der Bilder 
mancherlei Umbiegung und Abstumpfung der paulinischen Theo- 
logie nach dem Nomistischen und Intellekualistischen. Ethik 
und Glaube treiben auseinander” (J. Albani, ZWT7:, 1902, 57, 
in an essay on ‘Die Bildersprache der Pastoralbriefe’). “On 
ne peut nier que le style de notres é€pitres ait quelque chose de 
lache et de diffus” (Bertrand, of. cit. 62). There are Pauline 
echoes, it is true, but anacoloutha and paronomasiz were not 
specifically Pauline, and even these features fail to outweigh 
the impression made by the style as a whole. 

(ὦ The force of these linguistic considerations cannot be 
turned by the assertion that Paul’s style would vary in private 
letters ; the pastorals are not private letters (see below), and in 
Philemon, the only extant example of such from Paul’s pen, such 
traits do not appear. Nor can it be argued that in writing on 
questions of church-order and discipline he would necessarily adopt 
such a style, for in the Corinthian correspondence he deals with 
similar phenomena, and here again the treatment differs materially 


* Καλός, which Paul uses only as a predicate or a neuter substantive, is 
employed repeatedly by this author as an attribute. Δεσπότης supplants the 
Pauline κύριος as a human term, and ἐπιφάνεια (see above, p. 79) replaces the 
Pauline παρουσία. 


408 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


from that of the pastorals. Still less can we ascribe the peculiar 
phraseology to the fact that Paul quotes from the vocabulary of 
his opponents (Otto, of. ci#. 8-9), or that he is now, in contrast to 
his former letters, dealing with the duties of a holy life instead 
of with controversial topics (Lock, Paul the Master-Builder, 117- 
121). If it is contended that some of these differences in 
vocabulary may be due to difference of subject-matter, this fails 
to explain the appearance of ἀρνεῖσθαι, ἀποτρέπεσθαι, βέβηλος, 
διαβεβαιοῦσθαι, ὑγιαίνειν, etc. etc. Besides, an examination of 
the topics handled in these pastorals, and of their method of treat- 
ment, reveals fresh proof that they belong to a sub-Pauline period, 
and that the ἅπαξ εὑρημένα (amouniing to the large total of nearly 
180) cannot fairly be attributed to such factors as change of 
amanuensis, lapse of time, fresh topics, literary versatility, or . 
senile weaknéss (cp. £87. 5087). 

§ 5. Odject.—The aim of the pastorals, which were composed 
(as Tertullian observes) to expound church affairs, is to enforce 
the continuity of apostolic doctrine and discipline against specu- 
lations which were threatening the deposit of the faith and the 
organisation of the churches. (a) These speculations (cp. E. F. 
Scott, Zhe Apologetic of the NT., 1907, 152 f.) were due to a blend 
of incipient Gnosticism and Judaism which is indistinct, partly 
because the writer’s method (see p. 409) is to denounce vaguely and 
somewhat indiscriminately, partly because his desire of avoiding 
anachronisms led him to avoid being explicit about the details 
of error which had not risen till after Paul’s death, and partly owing 
to our ignorance of the budding forms of Christian gnosticism. 


The dualism and favouritism inherent in gnostic theosophy are explicitly 
opposed in Tit 2" (for all men), as in 1 Ti 2), and the denial of the 
resurrection, combated in 2 Ti 218, was a gnostic inference from the dualism 
which opposed the flesh and the spirit. The ‘myths and interminable 
genealogies’ of 1 Ti 1‘ are not wholly explained (see above, p. 406) by the 
haggadic embroidery of Jewish biographies, which would hardly be classed 
among ‘novelties’; they must include some reference to the gnosticism 
which constructed out of ample mythological materials long series of zons or 
spiritual powers, arranged in pairs. Here and elsewhere gnostic traits are 
visible, some of which recall the Ophite gnostics who, starting from an 
antithesis between the supreme God and the creator, held that the fall of 
Adam (1 Ti 213.14) was really his emancipation from the latter’s authority, 
and that therefore the serpent symbolised the γνῶσις which raised man to the 
life of the God who was above the creator. The place assigned to the 
serpent naturally varied, however. The Naassenes, one of the earliest 
branches of this movement, are said by Hippolytus to have been the first to 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 409 


assume the name ‘gnostic’ (ἐπεκάλεσαν ἑαυτοὺς γνωστικούς, φάσκοντες 
μόνοι τὰ βάθη γινώσκειν, cp. Apoc 2%), and it’is some of their views * which 
are controverted not only by the prophet John but by this Paulinist, viz. the 
prohibition of marriage, the assertion that the resurrection was spiritual, and 
the exploitation of myths. One recommendation of this Ophite hypothesis 
(Schmiedel, Lightfoot, etc.) is that it does justice to the Jewish substratum of 
the errorists, especially in Titus and 1 Tim. It is plain that the errorists 
in Crete include Jewish Christians (μάλιστα of ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς), | who 
are promulgating Ἰουδαϊκοὶ μῦθοι (1.6. probably haggadic traditions like 
those in Jubilees and the pseudo-Philonic de bzblicis antiqguitatibus) and 
ἐντολαὶ ἀνθρώπων, which (as the next words indicate) relate to ceremonial 
and ritual distinctions between clean and unclean foods. The Jewish 
character of these speculations, which attempted a fusion of the gospel with 
their own theosophy, is borne out by the contemptuous allusion (3°) to 
silly discussions and γενεαλογίαι (part of the aforesaid μῦθοι with which they 
are grouped in 1 Ti 14) and wrangles about the Law (cp. Zenas ὁ νομικός in 
33). There is no trace, however, of any direct attack upon the Pauline gospel 
or upon Paul himself; the ἡμᾶς of 3! is too incidental to be pressed into any 
proof of such a local antagonism. The writer felt that Paul was essentially anti- 
gnostic, and that such tenets would have been repugnant to the man who had 
waged war upon the precursors of the movement at Colosse. But his own 
practical bent prevents him from developing in reply Paul’s special theory of 
gnosis as a special endowment superior to faith and mediated by the Spirit. 
His method is denunciation rather than argument or the presentation of some 
higher truth, and this is one of the reasons which leave the physiognomy of 
the errorists so largely in the shadow.t{ The exhaustive investigations on the 
precise character of these errorists (cp. ¢.g. Bourquin, of. cét. 55f.; 2.81. 
5083-5084) have generally led to the negative conclusion that no single 
system of second-century gnosticism is before the writer’s mind. He is not 
antagonising any one phase of contemporary heresy, allied to the Naassenes 
(Lightfoot, Bzb/ical Essays, 411 f.), the Essenes (Credner, Mangold), the 
Valentinian Ophites (Lipsius, Pfleiderer), etc. He simply makes Paul predict, 
vaguely of course, the tendencies of an incipient syncretistic gnosticism (cp. 
von Dobschiitz, Urc. 2531. ; Klopper in ZW7., 1904, 571.) which was 


* ‘* The first appearance of the Ophite heresy in connection with Christian 
doctrines can hardly be placed later than the latter part of the first century,” 
Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 1875, pp. 104f. (cp. ERE. ix. 499-501). 

7 Possibly the connection of Titus with the controversy over circumcision 
(Gal 215) may have been one of the reasons which led the author to com- 
pose the epistle from Paul to him. 

1 also is one of the numerous and decisive proofs that Paul did not 
write the pastorals. ‘‘Such indiscriminate denunciations are certainly not 
what we should expect from aman like Paul, who was an uncommonly clear- 
headed dialectician, accustomed to draw fine distinctions, and whose penetra- 
tion and ability to discover and display the vital point of difference between 
himself and an antagonist have never been surpassed. Those who ascribe 
to Paul the references to false teaching which occur in the pastoral epistles 
do him a serious injustice ” (McGiffert, 4.4. 402). 


410 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


evaporating the Pauline gospel. Traits of the physiognomy of these errorists 
or innovators can be found here and there in the Ophites and the Encratites, 
Cerinthus, Saturninus of Antioch, and even Marcion; more than once, e.g. 
in the references to the resurrection and to marriage, it is possible to detect 
distortions or exaggerations of Paul’s own teaching, which this Paulinist 
wishes to correct. But he is writing a pastoral manifesto, and naturally he 
does not trouble to draw fine distinctions between the various phases of un- 
settling doctrine which confront the church. 


(4) These traits of the author’s controversial temper open up 
into further traces of his sub-Pauline environment. Thus the 
polemic against the legalists in 1 Ti 1% is no longer that of 
Paul, but the outcome of the neo-catholic position which, now 
that the Pauline controversy was over, sought to retain the 
moral code of the law for the ethical needs of the church. The 
Paulinist who writes under his master’s name pleads for the usus 
legis politicus. Certainly, he replies to those who uphold the 
validity of the law, we are well aware that the law, as you say, 
is an excellent thing—for ἄδικο. The Law is a useful code of 
morals, in short, exactly as the rising spirit of the sub-apostolic 
period was accustomed to insist. 

To note only two other minor points out of many. The conception of 
Christ as mediator (1 Ti 2°) is closer to the standpoint of Hebrews than of 
Paul. Also, the language of 1 Ti 118, even more than of Eph 38, is really 
more natural in a Paulinist than in Paul himself; the motive of the whole 
section (11217) is to throw the glorious gospel into relief against the un- 
worthiness and weakness of its original agents—precisely as in Barn 5° (cp. 
Wrede, Das Messias-geheimnis, 107 f.). From Paul the language of deprecia- 
tion about himself would be as exagverated as the description of privilege in 
‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ would have been from John himself. As a 
matter of fact, 1 Ti 128 (ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην, ὅτι ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ) is 
almost a verbal echo of Test. Jud. 19 (ἀλλ᾽ ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων μου ἠλέησέ με 


ὅτι ἐν ἀγνωσίᾳ ἐποίησα), where the context is a warning against ἡ φιλαργυρίο 
(cons T16*); 


The sub-Pauline atmosphere is further felt unmistakably 
in the details of the ecclesiastical structure which is designed to 
oppose these errorists. The stage is less’ advanced than that off 
the Ignatian epistles, but the monarchical episcopate is beginning 
(cp. Knopf, ΜΖ. 196f.), and, even apart from this, the un- 
wonted attention paid to the official organisation of the church 
marks a development from that freer use of spiritual gifts by the 
members which Paul never ignored. The χαρίσματα had by no 
means died out ; but they are not congenial to this writer, and he 
deals with the situation very differently from his great master. 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 4i!I 


One crucial instance of this may be seen in the ascetic regulations 
for the organised register of widows. The χήρα, like the ἐπίσκοπος 
and the διάκονος, is forbidden, e.g., to contract a second marriage. 
This antipathy to second marriages (cp. Jacoby’s V7 E¢hih, 378 f.) 
is quite in keeping with sub-apostolic practice; Athenagoras 
called them ‘respectable adultery’; but the ethical standpoint is 
almost as un-Pauline as the assumption that every ἐπίσκοπος 
must be married. 


On this whole subject, see Hilgenfeld (ZW7., 1886, 456 f.) and Schmiedel 
(ZBz. 3113 f.), as against the view advocated by Hort (Chréstian Ecclesia, 
1898, 189 f.) and Lindsay (H/. i. 166f., Church and Ministry in the Early 
Centuries, pp. 139f.). The alternative explanation of 1 Ti 3? (δεῖ οὖν τὸν 
ἐπίσκοπον . . . εἶναι μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα), as a prohibition of clerical celibacy 
(‘‘ To interpret the words as a prohibition of second marriage—the ‘ bigamy’ 
of the canonists—is to go behind the text, and, indeed, involves an anachron- 
ism. The obvious meaning is that he to whom so responsible a charge as that 
of the ἐπισκοπή is committed, must be no untried, perhaps susceptible youth, 
without family ties and domestic duties, but a grave, elderly Christian, with 
a reputation and permanent residence in the community, a sober married 
man,” Edinburgh Review, 1903, p. 63), is almost equally decisive against 
the Pauline authorship (cp. Paul’s view of marriage in 1 Co 717). 


The strict emphasis on ecclesiastical order tallies with the 
fact that the church has now behind her a body of religious truth 
which it is her business to enforce. Paul, too, had his definite 
dogmas, but this writer presents the nucleus of the creed in 
technical, crystallised phrases, partly (see p. 58) rhythmical, 
partly stereotyped in prose aphorisms (cp. A. Seeberg’s Der 
Katechismus der Urchristenhett, 1903, pp. 172f.), and the out- 
come is a piety nourished on ‘good works,’ with conceptions 
of reward, a good conscience and reputation, which are 
stated with more emphasis than Paul would have allowed. 
The later conception of πίστις as fides gue creditur pre- 
dominates in the pastorals, where the objective sense has over- 
grown the subjective, as in the homily of Judas (8 and %).* 
Similarly (cp. Holtzmann, of. cit. 175 f.), δικαιοσύνη has no longer 
its technical Pauline content ; it has become an ethical quality 


*Cp. Gross, der Begriff der πίστις im NT (Spandow, 1875), pp. 7-9: 
“* Could the age of a writing be determined simply from the peculiar usage 
of some such significant term, Judas must be described as the latest of the 
NT writings. . . . Even a church-father could hardly have expressed him- 
self otherwise [than v.%], had he been speaking of the (hristian confession of 
faith.” See above, p. 346, 


412 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


rather than a religious relation (cp. 2 Ti 2%, x Ti 6"). The 
conception of the Spirit has passed through a corresponding pro- 
cess. ‘‘L’inspiration de l’Esprit est escamotée au profit d’une 
orthodoxie ecclésiastique. Au lieu d’étre un ferment de vie et 
de renouvellement, la doctrine de |’Esprit devient un moyen 
de défendre les formules du passé” (M. Goguel, Za xotion 
Johannique de L’ Esprit et ses antécédents historiques, 1902, Ὁ. 69). 
The Spirit, as in 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of John, is essenti- 
ally prophetic ; its functions in the faith-mysticism of Paul have 
dropped into the background. 

The trinity of the pastorals therefore corresponds to that of John’s 
apocalypse, z.¢. God, Jesus, and the (elect) angels. For the sub-Pauline 
tone of the references to angels, spirits, εἴς, cp. Everling, aze Paul, 
Angelologie und Diémonologie (1888), 112-117, and M. Dibelius, 7226 
Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (1909), 175-180. The conception of God 


brings out his absoluteness, his unity, his awe, his eternal purpose of 
salvation, but not his fatherhood. 


No possible change of circumstances or rise of fresh problems 
could have made Paul thus indifferent to such cardinal truths of 
his gospel as the fatherhood of God, the believing man’s union 
with Jesus Christ, the power and witness of the Spirit, the 
spiritual resurrection from the death of sin, the freedom from the 
law, and reconciliation. Throughout his epistles we can see 
Paul already counteracting mischievous speculations and church- 
disorders, but his method is not that of the pastorals ; his way of 
enforcing ethical requirements and the duties of organisation is 
characterised by a force of inspired intuition which differs from 
the shrewd attitude of this Paulinist. The latter handles the 
problems of his period with admirable sagacity, but not with the 
insight and creative vigour of an original thinker like Paul. He 
has the intuition of authority rather than the authority of 
intuition. 

‘The general impression one gets from the pastoral epistles is, that as a 
doctrine Christianity was now complete and could be taken for granted. . . 
there is nothing creative in the statement of it ; and it is the combination of 
fulness and of something not unlike formalism that raises doubts as to the 
authorship. St. Paul was inspired, but the writer of these epistles is some- 
times only orthodox. . . . St. Paul could no doubt have said all this [Tit 34:1, 
but probably he would have said it otherwise, and not all at a time” (Denney, 
The Death of Christ, 1902, 202f.). 

To sum up. The three epistles are not private or even 
open letters to Timotheus or Titus, but general treatises (cp, 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 413 


eg. τ Ti 28 ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ) addressed to an age or a circle 
which was inclined to doubt the validity or to misconceive 
and misapply the principles of the Pauline gospel. It is 
incredible that the Ephesian church, much less Timotheus, 
should require solemn reminders of Paul’s apostolate such as 
2 Ti rf 2%, Tit 13, 1 Ti 112; the real audience appears in 
the greetings of 2 Ti 4” (ἡ χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν), Tit 3), and 1 Ti 62, 
1 Tim., especially, is a practical assertion and application of the 
Pauline standard, in the literary form of an address written by 
the apostle to his lieutenant, Timotheus. The author, wishing 
to convey Paul’s protests against error and his ideals of church- 
life, naturally adopted the mise en scene of a temporary absence. 
The drawback was that, if Paul was soon to see his colleagues 
again (Tit 15, τ Ti 1%), there was no need of conveying such 
detailed injunctions (contrast 2 Jn 12, 3 Jn 1814). This imper- 
fection, however, was inevitable. A further weakness lay in the 
form of the injunctions themselves, which were in many cases at 
once far too fundamental and elementary to have been required 
by men of the experience and age of Timotheus and Titus. 
As literally meant for them, the counsels often seem inappro- 
priate, but when these men are viewed as typical figures of the 
later ἐπίσκοποι, the point of the regulations becomes plain ;* 
they outline the qualifications of the church-officers in question, 
especially of the ἐπίσκοποι, though not so finely as the epistle of 
Ignatius to Polykarp. Their primary concern is for these 
officials as responsible (cp. Schmiedel, Bz. 3124, 3145 f.) for the 
maintenance of the Pauline tradition and teaching (2 Ti τ 21:8). 
Christianity is becoming consolidated into an organisation, with 
orthodox teaching embodied in a baptismal formula (2 Ti 22% 4}, 
1 Ti 61716), and the church is called upon to defend this with 
might and main. The author thus falls into line with the 
attitude taken up by the prophet John (Apoc 215) and afterwards 
by Ignatius to the church of Ephesus; both of these teachers 
acknowledge heartily its alertness in detecting erroneous doctrine, 
and this Paulinist seeks to stimulate the same orthodox feeling 
by recalling the Pauline warrant for it. The same motives indeed 


*«* An Gemeinden wagte er angesichts der fertigen Sammlung der 
Gemeindebriefe des P. den Apostel nicht mehr schreiben zu lassen ; ein neuer 
Gemeindebrief des P. hatte bereits schweres Misstrauen herausgefordert ” 
(Jiilicher, ZVZ, 169). Thus Ephesians was probably a catholic pastoral 
originally, not addressed to Ephesus or any specific church (see above, p. 393). 


414 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


vibrate through the pastorals as are audible in the farewell 
address to the presbyters of Ephesus (Ac 20!735), where the 
historian makes Paul predict perversions of the faith, both 
from outside and inside the church, and enforce on the 
officials the duty of supervision, besides appealing to his own 
example. 

§ 6. Authorshifp.—The internal evidence does not justify any 
hypothesis of a plurality of authors. The pastorals in all 
likelihood came originally from one pen, but it is not possible 
to ascertain who the author was. Tradition has not preserved 
any clue to his personality, as was not unnatural, since his pious 
aim was to sink himself in the greater personality of the apostle 
whose spirit he sought to reproduce. That the epistles were 
composed by Timotheus and Titus themselves, on the basis of 
notes addressed to them by Paul (so Grau, 2ntwickelungs- 
geschichte des neutest. Schriftthums, ii. pp. 185 f., 208f.), is more 
improbable than that Luke was their author or amanuensis (so, 
after Schott’s Jsagoge, pp. 324f.; R. Scott, and J. D. James, of 
cit. pp. 154f.; Laughlin). | 

The remarkable affinities between the pastorals and the Lucan writings 
are displayed by Holtzmann (/astoral- Briefe, 92 f.), von Soden (7A. 133- 
135), and R. Scott (7e Pauline Epistles, 333-366). They have been used 
to prove either that Luke acted as Paul’s secretary, or that he composed the 
epistles himself at a later period. It would be no argument against the 
latter that they differ from the Third gospel and Acts ; a literary man of Luke’s 
capacity must not be measured by one or two writings. But the parallels of 
thought and language need not mean more than a common milieu of 
Christian feeling during the sub-Pauline age in the Pauline circles of Asia 
Minor. It is, ¢.g., not easy to understand why Luke should deliberately 


ignore Titus in his history and at the same time make him the central figure 
of a Pauline epistle. 


The pastorals really present not the personality of their 
author, but a tendency of early Christianity (cp. Wrede’s Ueber 
Aufgabe und Methode der sogen. NT Theologie, 1897, 357)" 
like Barnabas, James, Judas, and 2 Peter, they do not yield 
materials for determining the cast of the writer’s thought, and 
little more can fairly be deduced from their pages than the 
communal feeling which they voice and the general stage in the 
early Christian development which they mark. ΑἹ] we can say of 
their author is that he betrays wider affinities to Greek literature, 
eg. to Plutarch (cp. J. Albani in ZW7., 1902, aof.), than 
Paul, and that there are traces of an acquaintance not only with 


PAUL: ΤΟ TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 415 


second but with fourth Maccabees. This is not enough, how- 
ever, to justify us in urging that he was a pagan by birth. The 
afanities. with ὦ Peter (cp) 1 Tico?) = 1 P. {0 Tita? = 
ΒΕ. aah 2 ΞῪΡ τοῦ and τ ΤΠ 3 — τ Piz) are barely 
strong enough to prove that the writer was acquainted (so, 6.3.» 
Bigg, Holtzmann, and Briickner’s Chron. 57 f., 277 f.) with Peter’s 
letter, although the circulation of the latter in Asia Minor renders 
this hypothesis a priori probable, if the pastorals are assigned 
to an Asiatic Paulinist instead of (so, ¢.g., Baur, Schenkel, 
Holtzmann, Renan) to a Roman. 

It is not necessary to spend words upon the reasons which 
justified him in composing these Pauline pseudepigrapha (cp. 
HINT. 597f., 6t9f.; Bt. 1324 f., 3126f., 5095). The pastorals 
are a Christian form of swasori@, treatises or pamphlets in the form 
of letters (cp. p. 49), which were widely employed by jurists; they 
represent not only a natural extension of the letters and speeches, 
e.g., in Luke’s history, but a further and inoffensive development 
of the principle which sought to claim apostolic sanction for the 
expanding institutions and doctrines of the early church. It is 
curious that half a century later an Asiatic presbyter composed 
the Acts of Paul and Thekla from much the same motives, but 
was checked apparently for having illegitimately introduced ideas 
incompatible with the church’s creed (cp. Rolffs in AWA. i. 
366 f.). 

Quodsi quz Pauli perperam inscripta sunt, exemplum Thekle ad 
Jicentiam mulierum docendi tinquendique defendunt, sciant in Asia 
presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans 
conuictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse (Tertullian, 
de bapt. 17). Jerome repeats the story (de uzr. inlust. 7): Tertullianus refert 
presbyterum quendam in Asia σποὐδαστὴν apostoli Pauli conuictum apud 
Johannem quod auctor esset libri at confessum se hoc Pauli amore fecisse loco 
excidisse. For our present purpose it is irrelevant to discuss the historicity 
or valuelessness (cp. Corssen, GGA., 1904, pp. 719f.) of the statement. In 
either case it illustrates a process of literary morphology within the second 
century, which might be abused but which was open to devout disciples of a 
master (cp. p. 40), a recognised method of literary impersonation which chose 
epistolary as well as historical expression in order to gain religious ends. 
“ΤῸ a writer of this period, it would seem as legitimate an artifice to com- 
pose a letter as to compose a speech in the name of a great man whose 
sentiments it was desired to reproduce and record; the question which 
seems so important to us, whether the words and even the sentiments 
are the great man’s own, or only his historian’s, seems then hardly to 


have occurred either to writers or to readers” (Simcox, Writers of the New 
Testament, 38). ; 


416 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


§ 7. Period.—The terminus ad quem is fixed by the evident 
familiarity of Ignatius and Polykarp with the pastorals (see 
below). The ambiguous data of Clem. Romanus might further 
be interpreted in such a way as either to throw the pastorals 
into the ninth decade of the first century, or into the first decade 
of the second. In general, a date between go and 115 (120) is 
usually fixed by modern critics, though some do not go down 
later than A.D. 100 (Kattenbusch, Das Apost. Symbol, ii. 344; 50 
von Soden for 2 Tim.), while a few (4.9. Cone, Zhe Gospel and tts 
earliest Interpretations, 327 f.) still descend as far as a.D. 118- 
140. The internal evidence yields no fixed point for the date. 
The allusions to persecution and suffering are quite general, and 
it is no longer possible to find in the plural of βασιλέων (without 
any tov!) a water-mark of the age of the Antonines. The 
terminus a quo is the death of Paul, and probably the date of 
1 Peters composition. Between that and the limit already 
noted the period of the pastorals must lie. 

Those who still are able to believe that Paul wrote these 
letters generally admit that they must have been composed 
during a missionary enterprise which is supposed to have 
followed Paul’s release from the captivity of Ac 285°, The chief 
exceptions are W. E. Bowen, V. Bartlet, Lisco (Vincula 
Sanctorum, 1900), Bruston, and Laughlin, whose conjectural 
schemes are mutually destructive and exegetically untenable ; 
the utter impossibility of dating them within the period covered 
by Acts is stated clearly by Hatch, Holtzmann (of. cit. 15-27), 
Bourquin (pp. 10-25), Bertrand (23-47), and Renan (iii. pp. 
XXViii—xlvili). 

The denial of the Pauline authorship is not bound up with the rejection 
of the tradition about the release ; the two positions may be held separately, 
as, ¢.g., by Harnack. For attempts to rehabilitate the hypothesis of the 
release, see especially Steinmetz (Der zwette rim. Gefangenschaft des 
Apostels Paulus, 1897), Belser (7Q., 1894, 40f.), Hesse (of. cet. 244f.), 
Frey (de zweimalige rim. Gefangenschaft u. das Todesjahr des Ap. Paulus, 
1900), and Resch, Der Paulinismus (TU. xii. 493f., journey to Spain 
adumbrated in Ac 18=Ro 15%), Macpherson (A/7., 1900, 23-48), like 
Otto and Knoke, giving up the hypothesis (cp. Pfister in ZVW., 1913, 


pp. 216-221, for a disproof of this hypothesis) of a second imprisonment, 
holds to the authenticity of the pastorals. 


The outline of Paul’s career as given in Acts, even when 
ample allowance is made for the /acune of Luke’s narrative, 
does not leave any place for the composition of these pastorals, 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 417 


Their style and aim render it impracticable to disperse them over 
a term of years, during which Paul was writing his other letters. 
They must be taken as a group, and in this event the only 
alternative to a sub-Pauline origin is to date them subsequent 
to a supposed release of Paul from his imprisoment in Rome. 
The evidence for this release, followed by a tour in the Western 
Mediterranean, is not adequate, however; such as it is (Actus 
Petri cum Simone, Murat. Canon),* it is probably due to an 
imaginative expansion of Ro 15428, The devout fancy of the 
later church believed that because Paul proposed such a visit to 
Spain, he must have carried it out; but no such tradition lingered 
in Spain itself, and the express statements of Ac 20%- 88, together 
with the significant silence of Clemens Romanus, imply that the 
first-century tradition knew of no return to Asia Minor. The 
Pauline pastorals themselves say nothing of a visit to Spain prior 
to the return to the East, or of a proposed tour to Spain (see, how- 
ever, Dubowy’s essay in Bardenhewer’s 5121, Studien, xix. 3). 

The rhetorical passage in Clem. Rom. 5°? describes how Paul, κῆρυξ 
γενόμενος ἐν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, Td γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ 
κλέος ἔλαβεν. δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως 
ἐλθὼν καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμους The 
writer is portraying the sweep of Paul’s career from Jerusalem to Rome 
(Ro 1513), where his sun had ended its course. To a Roman τὸ τέρμα τῆς 
δύσεως would probably denote the Western Mediterranean, but Clement was 
writing for Eastern readers and adopting their standpoint. Thus ἀνατολῆς 
and δύσιν are used of Syria and Rome respectively in Ignat. Rom. 2. This 
interpretation is corroborated by the close collocation of ¢\@éy and 
μαρτυρήσας κτλ. in Clement (implying that Paul bore his testimony at τὸ 
τέρμα τῆς δύσεως), and clinched by the context which dates the death of Paul 
and Peter prior to the Neronic persecution. Otherwise, it might be taken as 
an inference, like the later allusions, from Ro 153 (cp. Moffatt, 5. 81. 5088 ; 
Schmiedel, 5.82. 4599-4600; Workman, Fersecution in the Early Church, 
1906, 36f.). 

§ 8. Traces in early Christian literature.—The coincidences 
of thought and expression between Barnabas and the pastorals 
are too general to prove literary dependence either way. Phrases 
like μέλλων κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς (vii=2 Ti 41), φανεροῦσθαι 
ἐν σαρκί (vi, xii, cp. 1 Ti 2106) and ἐλπὶς ζωῆς (i=Tit 1? 37) 
probably belonged to ‘the common atmosphere of the church’ 
(Holtzmann, von Soden, Bernard), liturgical or catechetical, and 
the same consideration would fairly cover v.6=2 Ti 110, xix= 
1 Ti 5)’, although the manifestation of Christ’s grace in choos- 

* For the Acta Pauli, see Rolffs in HNA. ii. 368f.,and Lake in DAC. i. 32 f. 
27 


418 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


ing apostles ὄντας ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρους (ν.5) is a 
striking parallel to 1 Ti 14% Not much stress could be put 
upon the occurrence in Ignatius of some terms characteristic of 
the pastorals (¢g. αἰχμαλωτίζειν of errorists, ἀναζωπυρήσαντες, 
ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, καλοδιδασκαλία, κατάστημα, and mpairafea), 
did such phenomena stand alone, but further traces of the 
epistles being familiar to Ignatius (cp. Inge in ZA. 71-73) 
occur in Magn. xi. etc. (Jesus Christ our hope)=1 Ti 11, Poly. 
iv. 3=1 Ti 67, Polyk. vi. 2 (ἀρέσκετε & otpareverbe)=2 Ti 24, 
Magn. viii. t1=1 Ti 4", Tit 114 3%, possibly also in the use of 
ἀναψύξαι (EZ ph. ii. 1, cp. Smyrn. x. 2=2 Ti 118), τέλος δὲ ἀγάπη 
(22λ. xiv. 1=1 Ti 15), and οἰκονομία (2221. xx. 1=1 Ti 14, cp. 
Polyk. vi.=Tit 17). The case of Clem. Rom. is not quite so 
clear. A phrase like Uifting holy hands (xxix. 1, cp. 1 Ti 28) is 
too current, as Lightfoot shows, to count as evidence of literary 
filiation, while βασιλεῦ τῶν αἰώνων (Ixi. 2, cp. Apoc 153 δὲ C, 
τ Ti 127) goes back to Jewish liturgical terminology; but these 
would gain significance if other parallels like ii. 7 (ἕτοιμοι εἰς πᾶν 
ἔργον ἀγαθόν, cp. xxiv. 4)=Tit 3! (πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους 
εἶναι, cp. 2 Ti 221 3117), vii. 3 (καὶ ἴδωμεν τί καλὸν καὶ τί τερπνὸν 
καὶ τί προσδεκτὸν ἐνώπιον τοῦ ποιήσαντος yuas)=1 Ti 2° (τοῦτο 
καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ), xxvii. 1--2 
(ταύτῃ οὖν τῇ ἐλπίδι προσδεδέσθωσιν αἱ ψυχαὶ ἡμῶν τῷ πιστῷ ἐν 
ταῖς ἐπαγγελίαις... οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀδύνατον παρὰ τῷ θεῷ εἰ μὴ τὸ 
ψεύσασθαι) -- Tit 13 (ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου, ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο ὃ 
ἀψευδὴς θεός), xlv. 7 (ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει λατρευόντων) Ξ- 2 Ti 18 
(λατρεύω ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει), and liv. 3=1 ΤΊ 418 (περιποιεῖσθαι 
in connection with the ministry), were allowed to indicate some 
literary relationship.* That they do so, is suggested further by 
a series of coincidences, including ii. 1 (rots ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ 
dpxovpevot)=1 Ti 68, and xxxil. 3=2 Ti 1%, Tit 407, In this 
event, unless we attribute all these phenomena to a common 
milieu of church feeling, a literary dependence must be 
postulated on the side of the pastorals, or of Clement. The 
former is not impossible. It is erroneous to assume, in the case 


* The possibility of a common source, in the shape of some catechetical 
manual (A. J. Carlyle in MZA. pp. 50-51) might explain the corre- 
spondence between i. 3 and Tit 2*° (where olkoupyovs has a ν.]. olxoupods). 
Πίστις ἀγαθή occurs in xxvi. 1=Tit 21°, but in different senses, and a common 
atmosphere might account for the frequent use of εὐσέβεια in both, and allied 
ecclesiastical conceptions, as, ¢.g., i. 3, xliv. 4=1 Ti 5”, xlii. g=1 Ti 3% 


PAUL: TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS 419 


of a NT writing and an extra-canonical document, that the 
literary filiation must 2250 facto be in favour of the former as 
prior; this is a misconception due to the surreptitious intro- 
duction of the canon-idea into the criticism of early Christian 
literature (p. 10). If an examination of the pastorals in other 
aspects points to the first decade of the second century as their 
period, there can be no objection to the view that Clem. Rom. is 
used by their author just as by Polykarp. The deep and wide 
influence speedily won by Clem. Rom. is otherwise shown by its 
incorporation in the Muratorian Canon. But the hypothesis of 
the use of the pastorals in Clement has also a fair case, which 
would involve their composition not much later than A.D. 80. 
Yhe latter date is not impossible, particularly if the presence of 
later glosses and accretions is admitted. 

The most assured traces of the pastorals in early Christian 
literature occur in Polykarp’s epistle; for although Titus cannot 
be shown to have been before Polykarp’s mind (vi. 3= 214), 
both 1 Tim. (iv. 1 = 67-19, iv. 3=55, v. 2= 38, vill, 1=1), xi. 2= 
3%, xii. 3= 2! 415) and 2 Tim. (v. 2=21, ix. 2=4", xi. 4= 2%, 
xii. 1=15) are evidently familiar to him, as indeed is generally 
acknowledged. There are only two or three allusions in Justin 
Martyr’s Dialogue (vii. 7 and xxxv. 3=1 Ti 4}, better still xlvii. 
15 =Tit 34); but, as the second century advances, the evidences 
for the circulation of the pastorals multiply on all sides, from 
Theophilus of Antioch (ad Awtolyk., quoting as θεῖος λόγος 
Tit 31-5, τ Ti 2%) and Hegesippus (if Eus. #. £. iii. 32 may be 
taken as conveying his exact words) in the East, to Athenagoras 
of Athens, the churches of Lyons and Vienne (Eus. 27. £. v. 1-3), 
and 2 Clement in the West. 2 Tim. seems to be presupposed 
in the Acts of Paul, as is 1 Tim. in the Afost. Constitutions (cp. 
Harnack in ZU. iii. 5, 49f.); and all three are authoritative 
to Irenzeus, Tertullian, and Clem. Alex. They appear in the 
Muratorian Canon as private letters (‘pro affectu et dilectione’), 
yet like Philemon honoured and accepted by the church 
catholic. Cp., generally, Zahn’s GX. i. 634f.; Steinmetz, Die 
sweite rom. Gefangenschaft des Apostels Paulus, (1897) 104f. 


According to Tertullian (adv. Marc. ν. 21), Marcion excluded them from 
his canon on the ground that they were private letters, and therefore unsuit- 
able for purposes of general edification (contrast the protest of the Muratorian 
Canon). But, as his admission of Philemon proves, this was probably ne 
more than a pretext; his real reasc- was cither that he suspected, their 


420 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


authenticity, or that the epistles struck at conceptions which were allied to 
his own, and that no process of excision, such as he practised in the case, ¢.g., 
of Galatians and Romans, could adapt these pastorals to his own use. The 
gnostic errorists of the second century felt the same objection to thera. 
Ὑπὸ ταύτης ἐλεγχόμενοι τῆς φωνῆς (1 Ti 6%) οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων τὰς πρὸς 
Τιμόθεον ἀθετοῦσιν ἐπιστολάς (Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 11. 52). Jerome, in his 
preface to Titus, notes that Basilides and other teachers, as well as Marcion, 
rejected the Pauline pastorals together with Hebrews, as savouring too much 
of the OT, although Tatian, ‘ Encratitarum patriarches,’ made an exception 
in favour of Titus, and the Valentinians seem to have read the epistles to 
Timotheus. 


(C) HEBREWS. 


LITERATURE.—-(a) Editions'—Erasmus (Paraphrasts, 1521); J. B. 
Pomeranus (Anmotationes, Nuremberg, 1525 f.); Cajetan, Lztteralis exposztio 
(Rome, 1529); Bullinger (1532); Oecolampadius (1534); Calvin (1549)*; 
Beza (1582); N. Hemming (1586); J. J. Grynzeus (Basle, 1586); J. A. 
Delfini (Rome, 1587); de Ribeira (Salamanca, 1598); Salmeron (Cologne, 
1602); R. Rollock, Analys¢s Logica (Edinburgh, 1605); F. Balduinus 
(Disputationes, 1608); de Tena (Toledo, 1611); Lushington (1646) ; Alting 
(1652); Lawson (1662); I. Owen (London, 1668-1674) ; Sebastian Schmidt 
(1680, third edition, 1722); Wittichen’s /zvestzgatzo (1691) ; 8. S. Nemethus 
(1695) ; Braunius (1705); Rambach (1742); Pierce and Benson (Lat. ed. by 
Michaelis, Halle, 1747); Carpzow, Sacre exercitationes in St. Pauli eptst. 
ad Hebreos (1750)*; Sykes (1755); J. A. Cramer (1757); Baumgarten 
(Halle, 1763); Moldenhawen (1762-1770, Leipzig); G. T. Zacharii 
(Gottingen, 1771); S. F. N. Morus (1781); Abresch, Paraphrasts et annot, 
(1786f.); F. W. Hezel (1795); J. Ernesti, Prelectiones Academice (1795); 
G. C. Storr (Stuttgart, 1809); Walckenauer, Selecta e Scholes (1817); Ὁ. 
Schulz, der Brief an die Heb., Einlettung, Uebersetzung. und Anmerkungen 
(Breslau, 1818)*; A. M‘Lean (London, 1820); C. F. Boehme (1825) ἢ ; 
S. T. Blomfield (London, 1826-7); F. Bleek (1828-40)*; C. T. 
Kuinoel (1831); H. E. G. Paulus (1833); H. Klee’s Auslegung (Mayence, 
1833); C. W. Stein (1838); R. Stier (1842); Lombard (1843); de Wette? 
(1847); Thiersch (Marburg, 1848); Stengel’s Arkdarung (1849); Ebrard 
(1850, Eng. tr. 1853); Tholuck® (1850); S. H. Turner (New York, 1855); 
A. S. Patterson (Edinburgh, 1856); Delitzsch® (1857, Eng. tr. 1868) "; 
Moses Stuart 4(1860) ; E. Reuss (1860 and 1878) ; A. Maier (Freiburg, 1861) ; 
C. Schweighauser’s Paraphrase (Paris, 1862); John Brown (Edin. 1862) ; 
Alford? (1862); A. Bisping (1863); Kluge (Auslegung u. Lehrbegriff, 1863) ; 
Liinemann 8 (1867, Eng. tr. of fourth ed. 1882); W. Lindsay (Edinburgh, 
1867); Ripley (Boston, 1862); J. H. Kurtz (1869); Ewald, Sendschretben 
an die Heb. (1870); J. B. M‘Caul (London, 1871); 1. Harms (1871); _ 
Hofmann * (1873) ; Worner (1876); Moll (in Lange’s Bibe/- Werk*, 1877); 


1 For the Latin commentaries, from the sixth century onwards, cp. E. 
Riggenbach’s ‘‘ Die iltesten lateinischen Kommentare zum Heb.” (1907, im 
Zahn's Forschungen sur Gesch, ad. neutest, Kanons, vii. 1). 


HEBREWS 421 


Biesenthal (Efzstola Pauli ad Heb. cum rabbinico commentario, Leipzig, 
1878); L. Zill (Mayence, 1879); Kay (Speaker's Commentary, 1881); Panek 
(1882); A. B. Davidson (1882)*; Angus (Schaffs Comm. 1882); O. 
Holtzheuer (Berlin, 1883); Keil (Leipzig, 1885) ; J. Barmby (Pulpit Comm.2 
1887); F. Rendall (1888, London); Schlatter (1888); Kahler? (1800) ; 
C. J. Vaughan (London, 1890); W. F. Moulton (Ellicott’s Comm. n. d.); 
Farrar (CG7. 1893); A. Schafer (Miinster, 1893); Padovani (Paris, 1897) ; 
Weiss® (— Meyer, 1897)*; Kiibel (1898); von Soden* (HC. 1899); Ὁ. 
Huyghe (Gand, 1901); Cone(1901, New York); Westcott® (1903)*; F. Blass, 
Brief an die Hebraer, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903) ; J. van Andel, 
De Brief aan de Hebrier (1906); A. S. Peake (CA. n.d.)*; Hollmann 
(SNT7.? 1907); E. J. Goodspeed (New York, 1908); Dods (EG7. 1910)*; 
E. C. Wickham (WC. 1910); A. Seeberg (Leipzig, 1912) ; Riggenbach (ZK. 
1913)*; Windisch (HBNT. 1913); A. Nairne (CGT. 1918). 

(ὁ) Studies—(i.) on the religious ideas :—D. Dickson (1635); J. Ὁ. 
Michaelis? (Zrk/larung, 1780); C. G. Tittmann (de motzone sacerdotis in 
Ep. ad Heb. 1783); Planck (Negatur philos. platonica vestigia exstare in 
epist. ad Heb., Gottingen, 1810); de Wette (7heol. Jahrb., 1822, 1-51); 
A. Giigler, Prévat-Vortrdge (Sarmenstorf, 1837); C. C. Meyer, Essaz sur 
la doctrine de Pép. aux H. (1845); van den Ham, Doctrina ep. ad H. 
(1847); C. C. Moll, Chréstologia in ep. ad Heb. proposita (1854-9, Halle) ;1 
Ritschl, A/katholischen Kirche (pp. 159f.); J. A. Haldane (1860) ; Riehm, 
der Lehrbegriff des Hebrierbriefs? (1867)* ; Baur’s Vorlesungen tiber NT- 
liche Theologie (pp. 230f.); H. W. Williams (Zxfosztion, 1872); Baur, 
Church History of First Three Centuries (Eng. tr. 1878, i. 114-121); J. E. 
Field, Zhe Afost. Liturgy and the Epist. to Heb. (1882); T. C. Edwards 
(Exposttor’s Bible, 1888); Reuss (W774. ii. 265f.); Klostermann, zur 
Theorie der bibl. Weissagung u. 2. Charakteristik des Hebraerbriefs (1889) ; 
Cone, Zhe Gospel and its Earliest Interpret. (1893) 233-249; Ménégog, 
Théologie de Pép. aux H. (1894)*; Farrar, Zarly Days of Christianity 
(bk. iii.) ; Holtzmann, W772, ii. 261-308; Wendt (ZWT., 1895, 157-160) ; 
A. B. Bruce (in Hastings’ DB. ii. 327-338, and The Epistle to the Hebrews, 
1899) *; Milligan, Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1899)*; G. H. 
Gilbert, First Interpreters of Jesus (1901), 259-297; G. Hoennicke (ZW7.., 
1902, 24-40); G. Bailey, Leading Ideas of Ep. to Hebrews (1907); Bruston 
(RTQR., 1907, 39-66); A. Nairne, 7he Epistle of Priesthood (1913); H. L. 
MacNeill, Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1914)* ; G. Vos (Princeton 
Theol. Review, 1915, 587f., 1916, 1-61); Moffatt (2 7. XXVili-xxix, 
‘Christology of Hebrews’). (ii.) general: —W. C. L. Ziegler’s Eindeitung 
(Gottingen, 1791); A. Réville, De ep. ad Heb. authentia (Geneva, 1817); 
Seyffarth, De indole peculiar? . . . (1821); F. Vidal, De Pauthentictté de 
?ép. aux Heb, (Geneva, 1829) ; Laharpe, Essad critique sur Pauth. (Toulouse, 
1832); Grossmann, De philos. Jud. sacre vestigiis in ep. ad Heb. conspicuis 
a a 

1 Superior, on the whole, to Zimmermann’s La personne et Teuvre de 
Christ @aprés Pép. aux H. (Strassburg, 1858) ; Sarrus’ Jésus Christ, a’ apres 
Pauteur de [ép. aux H, (Strassburg, 1861), and Capillery’s Christ et son 
auvre α᾽ αῤγὸς [ép. aux H, (Toulouse, 1866); but not to G. E. Steuer’s die 
Lehre des H. vom Hohenpriestenthum Christi (Berlin, 1865). 


422 HOMILIES AND PASTORaLS 


(Paris, 1833); Duke of Manchester (Hore Hebratce, 1835; on 1-41}}} 
K. R. Kostlin, Theol. Jahré. (1853) 410f., (1854) 366f., 465f.; W. Tait, 
Meditationes Hebratce (London, 1855); Wieseler’s Untersuchung (1861); 
Guers, Etude sur l’épitre aux 44. (Paris, 1862); Schneckenburger’s Bettrage 
(1861-1862) ; Renan, iv. (ch. ix.); W. Grimm (ZW7T7., 1870, pp. 19f.)*; 
G. Steward, Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh, 1872); 
Hilgenfeld (ZW7., 1873, 1-54); G. Meyer (ZSR. vi. 113 f.); Overbeck 
(Zur Gesch. der Kanons, pp. 1 ἔ., 1880) ; von Soden (/P7., 1884, pp. 435 fs 
627f.)*; ΝΥ. T. Bullock (Smith’s DZ. i. 771-777); Reuss, W7Th. ii. 238- 
261; Godet (Z£xf.3 vii. 241-265); G. G. Findlay, Efzstles of Paul the 
Apostle (1895), pp. 257-287; H. B. Ayles, Destination, Date, and Author- 
ship of the Ep. to the Hebrews (1899); Moffatt (ANZ. 344 f.); Jacquier 
(Vigouroux’ DB. iii, 515-551); W. Wrede, Das literarische Ratsel des 
Hebriaerbriefs (1906) ἢ; E. Burggaller (ZV W., 1908, 110-131, critique of 
Wrede) ; J. R. Willis (Hastings’ D&., 1909, 335-340); B. Weiss, Der 
Hebrierbrief in xzettgeschichtlicher Beleucktung (TU. xxxv. 3, 1910); R. 
Perdelwitz (ZVW., 1910, 59-78, 105-123; cp. M. Jones, ExZ.8 xii. 426 f.) ; 
V. Monod, De tztulo epistule vulgo ad Hebreos inscripte (Montauban, 1910) ; 
Burggaller (7R., 1910, 369 f., 4o9f.); F. S. Marsh (DAC. i. pp. 534f.); 
J. W. Slot, De letterkundige vorm v. den Brief aan de Hebrdaer (Groningen, 
1912); J. Quentel (RZ., 1912, 50f.). (111.} on the authorship :—C. A. Clew- 
berg (De auctore ep. ad Heb. 1753); C. F. Schmid (Super orig. epist. ad Heb. 
1765); G. Bratt (De argumento et auctore, . . . 1806); Baumgarten-Crusius 
(De origine epistole ad Heb. conjecture, Jena, 1829); F. C. Gelpe ( Véndiciae 
orig. paul. ep. ad Heb. 1832); C. Jundt (Examen critique sur Pauteur de ἢ 6. 
aux Hébreux, Strassburg, 1834); H. Monod (L’épitre aux H¢b. n’est pas de 
S. Paul, Strassburg, 1838); E. G. Parrot (Appréciation des preuves pour et 
contre Vorig. paul., Toulouse, 1852) ; J. Kroecher (De auctore Ep. ad Hebraos, 
Jena, 1872); G. H. Rouse (7kznker, 1895, 210-213) ; A. Wright, Some NT 
Problems (1898), pp. 331f.; Harnack (ZNVW., 1900, 16-41)*; F. M. 
Schiele (4/7., 1905, 290-308); K. Endelmann (ΛΑ Ζ., 1910, 102-126) ; 
Ἐν, Dibelius (Der Verfasser d. Hebriaerbriefes, Eine Untersuchung sur 
Geschichte des Urchristentums, Strassburg, 1911). (iv.) on the destination :— 
E. M. Roth, Efzst. vulgo ad Hebreos wnscriptam ad... christianos genere 
gentiles et quidem ad Ephesios datam esse demonstrare conatur (Frankfurt, 
1836)"; M. J. Mack (aber die ursprunglichen Leser d. Brief an die Hebraer, 
Tubingen, 1836); G. C. A. Liinemann (De dt. gue ad Heb. inscribuntur 
primis lectoribus, Gottingen, 1853); B. Heigl (Verfasser und Adresse des 
Briefes an die Hebrier, 1905) *. 


§ 1. Contents and outline.—(Cp. Thien, RB., 1902, 74-86). 
The writer opens, in a stately paragraph, by describing the 
superiority of Jesus Christ, as God’s Son, to the angels (11218) ;1 


1 The so-called logion (Resch, Paulinismus, 454 f.), quoted four times by 
Epiphanius (ὁ λαλῶν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, ἰδοὺ πάρειμι), is simply taken from 
Is 52 (,ΧΧ). It is equally precarious to connect (so Resch, Paulinismus, 
456-457) 415 with the logion preserved by Origen (Zn Afaét. tom. xiii. 2): καὶ 
᾿Ιησοῦς γοῦν φησιν" διὰ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας ἠσθένουν καὶ διὰ τοὺς πεινῶντας ἐπείνων 
καὶ διὰ τοὺς διψῶντας ἐδίψων. 


HEBREWS 423 


lordship over the world to come is the prerogative of Jesus alone. 
He is superior also, as God’s Son, to Moses (3!—4}8), and assures 
his people of a perfect Rest in the world to come. Finally, as 
God’s Son, he is superior to Aaron and the Levitical priesthood 
(4147), as the high priest of the good things to come (911), after 
ihe order of Melchizedek. Were the writer grapples with the 
matter which is really at issue between himself and his friends 
(cp. A. Schmidt, Hed. tv. 1¢-v. 10: Eine exegetische Studie, 1900). 
Reproaching them for their immaturity and backwardness in the 
theology of their faith (51!-6°),* he proceeds to instruct them in 
the higher doctrine of Christ’s heavenly priesthood. This, with 
all its far-reaching consequences for religion, is the heart and 
height of the author’s message. Since he conceives religion 
under the aspect of a covenant or διαθήκη, which must be 
determined by a priesthood of some sort, the introduction of the 
final and perfect covenant implies the revelation of a corre- 
sponding priesthood in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of 
God, which is held to be only the fulfilment of the Mel- 
chizedek sacerdotal order; and, as the latter was prior to the 
Levitical, the supersession of the Levitical order by the eternal, 
heavenly priesthood of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, is quite natural, 
even apart from the fact that a change of priesthood involved 
a change of the law or the religious economy (7). The climax 
or crown of the argumenty is now reached (83). Whereas the 
divine revelation in Judaism had been given through angels (23), 
established by Moses (33) and perpetuated by the Aaronic 
priesthood (51), Jesus is superior to all, especially to the third 
as the embodiment of the two former. The superiority of 
Christ’s priestly ministry over that of the Levitical order, as 
a means of access to, and fellowship with, God, is the fulfilmentt 
of Jeremiah’s famous oracle (8%) which promised such a valid 
and absolute covenant as Christ has inaugurated at his ascension ; 
and (91:14) it is a superiority § (a διαφορωτέρα λειτουργία) which is 
exemplified in the sanctuary, the offering, and the consequent 


* Cp. J. Albani’s essay (ZWT7., 1904, 86-93) on ‘Heb 5-68, ein Wort 
zur Verfasserschaft des Apollos.’ 

7 For this use of κεφάλαιον, see F. Field’s Notes on Tr. of NT. (1899), 
pp- 227 f., and Musonius’ κεφάλαιον γάμου (Musonius, ed. Hense, pp. 67 f.). 

t This makes it all the more remarkable that, unlike Paul (1 Co 11%"), 
he never alludes to Christ’s words upon the διαθήκη at the Last Supper. 

§ For the depreciatory nuance in 9", cp. Field (of. cz#. p. 229). 


424 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


fellowship of the Son’s ministry for men. His sacrifice of himself 
for them, being spiritual, is final (9!5—1018); it attains the end 
vainly sought by previous sacrifices, and therefore supersedes the 
latter. Having elucidated this central truth, the writer advances to 
make it the basis of an earnest appeal for religious confidence and 
steadfastness (101%), With a brief warning against the danger of 
carelessness and apostasy (1076-8!), he rallies his suffering readers 
by inciting them to be worthy of their past faith (108%), This 
leads him to kindle their imagination and conscience by a 
magnificent roll-call of the sorely tried heroes and heroines of 
Israel who had believed and pleased God (11), closing with the 
example of Christ as the leader and perfecter of faith in this 
world (1218). The example of the Son’s suffering and loyalty 
proves that trouble is a mark of the Father’s education of men, 
and therefore that it should be borne patiently, for the sake of 
its uses (124), all the more so that the privileges thus opened to 
the faith of the new covenant involve a fearful penalty for those 
who reject them. A choice must be made between the two 
dispensations, and the author rounds off his exhortation with 
a moving antithesis between the terrors and punishment of the 
one and the eternal hope and reverent confidence of the other 
(121829), The thought of the break with the old order that is 
needful for any adhesion to true Christianity follows the writer 
even into his postscript, where, after a short table of ethical 
duties (131-7), the mention of the former teachers, from whom his 
readers had received-their faith, prompts him (in a digression) to 
emphasise the need of loyalty to such principles (13816) and to 
their present faithful leaders (1317). A request for prayer (13}8) 
and a word of prayer (13!%1), followed by some personal 
greetings, end the epistle (137-5). 

§ 2. Characteristics and style—A closer examination of the 
writing reveals traces of Greek rhetorical prose, but not, strictly 
speaking, in its arrangement upon the lines of a προοίμιον πρὸς 
εὔνοιαν (11-4!) and a πρόθεσις, followed by a διήγησις πρὸς πιθα- 
νότητα (414-6), an ἀπόδειξις πρὸς πειθώ (71-1018), and an ἐπίλογος 
(10!®1371), None of these terms exactly corresponds to the rela- 
tive sections of the epistle (Wrede, p. 37). Where the literary skill 
of the author comes out is in the deft adjustment of the argumenta- 
tive to the hortatory sections (Dibelius, pp. 6f.). The superiority 
(cp. Diaz. ὃ 2998, xxiv) of Jesus Christ to all angels first suggests 
the enhanced danger of neglecting the revelation of God in his 


HEBREWS 425 


Son (2!4, contrast 12 and 232. Then the mention of σωτηρία 
(28) opens out into a paragraph upon the objects of that salvation 
(men, not angels, 215), and their moral unity through suffering 
with Christ as the strong and sympathetic high priest of humanity. 
Here the leading note of the epistle is struck by anticipation 
(217 31 wherefore . . . consider Jesus the apostle and high priest of 
our confession). Before pursuing this theme, however, the author 
resumes the idea of Christ as the ἀπόστολος or herald and agent 
of God’s final salvation (11 2%), superior as God’s Son to Moses, 
who was only God’s servant (316) ; this passes into a reiterated 
warning against unbelief (37% 12 4115 cp. 215), after which the 
author reverts to encouragement (414), in view of Jesus (God’s 
Son) as the great high priest of Christians, considerate and 
sympathetic (as in 21418), Once this theme is under way (7}*), 
its progress is hardly interrupted. The gathered momentum of 
the argument finally breaks out (101%) into the long appeal with 
which the writing ends, an appeal directly addressed to the 
situation of the readers. The second personal pronoun is more 
frequently used (109% 123f 131f, cp, 31 1218 512f), though not to 
the exclusion of the first (101% 89 7140-122 129-10, cp, 125), Still, 
the redeeming sacrifice of Christ continues to reappear (1019. 29 
12% 1310f. 20.) even amid the practical counsels of the epilogue. 
Hebrews has a sense of the centre; there is a constant return 
to the permanent and vital religion of Jesus Christ, amid all the 
arguments on ancient ritual and history. 


On the strophic character of the earlier part (14-14 21-3? 38-418 414510 511_ 
65 6920 71_82 88-18 0112 918-22 (33 γΟἹ yo%2 1076-89), see H. J. Cladder in 
Zeitschrift fiir kath. Theologte (1905), pp. 1-27, 500-524; the rhythmical 
prose of the epistle is discussed by Thackeray ( 77,5. vi. 232f.) in relation 
to the Wisdom of Solomon, and by Blass in SX., 1902, 420-461, and in 
Die Rhythmen der asianischen und rim. Kunstprosa (1905), pp. 41-42, 
78f., 87f., where attempts are made to find rhythm right and left (cp. 
above, p. 57). 


The style corresponds to these phenomena. It is literary 
and even classical in parts. ‘‘Si Paul est un dialecticien incom- 
parable, le rédacteur de l’épitre aux Hébreux a plutét les qualités 
d’un orateur, riche et profond assurément, mais qui ne néglige 
pas non plus les affets du style et la recherche du beau language” 
(Bovon, V77Zz%. ii. 391). ‘Thus—to note only one or two salient 
points—the predilection for the perfect tense may sometimes be 
explained from the author’s desire to emphasise the permanent 


426 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


and contemporary value of some remote action (as, ¢g., in 
7814 813, see Westcott’s note on 7°); sometimes it is natural 
enough, as may be gathered from the context (e.g. ro), but 
occasionally the perfect seems used, neither for the present nor 
as the perfect of recorded action (cp. Abbott’s Diat. 2758), but 
either for the sake of literary variety, to break a line of aorists 
(1127-28), or (118, cp. 15) as a result of the movement which after- 
wards, in Byzantine Greek, substituted the perfect often-for the 
aorist (Burton, Moods and Tenses, 88; Jannaris, Hist. ΟἿΑ. 
Gramm. 439). Besides the rare use of the aor. ptc. in 219, and 
the sparing use of the definite article, other traces of Greek 
culture * are visible in the use of μέν. . . δέ (seven times, ¢.g., in 
ch. 7; cp. Norden’s Das antike Kunstprosa, i. 25-26), in the 
oratorical imperatives of 74 (cp. θεωρεῖτε, 4 Mac 148), in the 
assonances and composite phrases which dignify his style, and 
in the application of αὐτός to God the speaker (13°), as in the 
Pythagorean school’s phrase αὐτὸς ἔφα (thus spake the Master, 
cp. Ac 20%). The epistle shows generally a striving after 
rhetorical effect; the author is not a litterateur, but, for all his 
religious aims, he is now and then a conscious stylist. There is 
also a notable predilection for technical philosophical terms, or 
for words and phrases which were specially employed by earlier 
philosophical writers from Plato and Aristotle to Philo, eg. 
αἰσθητήριον, δημιουργός (of God), θέλησις, μετριοπαθεῖν, τιμωρία, 
and ὑπόδειγμα (cp. A. R. Eagar, Hermathena, xi. 263-287, 
G. H. Gilbert, A7Z., 1910, 521f., and H. T. Andrews, Z£xg.® 
xiv. 348f.). Such idiosyncrasies of his style and diction are 
thrown into relief against those of Paul’s (cp. Rendall’s Hedrews, 
Appendix, pp. 26f.). Unlike Paul, he uses ἐάνπερ, καθ᾽ ὅσον, ὅθεν, ὡς 
ἔπος εἰπεῖν, and studiously avoids dpa οὖν, εἴ τις, εἴγε, εἴτε, μὴ γένοιτο, 
μήπως, μηκέτι, πάντοτε, τί οὖν, etc. (see, further, below). His gram- 
matical use of κοινωνεῖν and κρατεῖν also differs from that of Paul, 
and other terms, like τελειόω, are employed in different senses. 
The last-named word is one indication of the distinctive mental 

* There are, of course, traces of vernacular Greek as well as of idiomatic 
Greek, but it is surely rash to argue that the sole occurrence of the optative 
mood in 13”! (καταρτίσαι) ‘‘is presumptive proof that an Alexandrian did not 
write this epistle, as it is not likely that the use of this word in but one 
instance would have satisfied his fine Greek taste” (Harmon, /BZ., Dec. 
1886, p. 10). Robinson Crusoe, as Huxley once put it, did not feel obliged 


to infer, from the single footstep in the sand, that the man who made the 
impression possessed only one leg. 


HEBREWS ! 427 


cast of the autor ad Hebreos. Fre employs and adopts the 
Aristotelian idea of the τέλος or final end, with its τελείωσις or 
sequence of growth, in order to exhibit the historical evolution of 
Christianity from Judaism, the development of Christian doctrine 
from its ἄρχη to its τελείοτης, the perfecting of Christ himself 
through suffering (210 58), and the growth of the Christian after 
Christ in the discipline and experience of life. At the same 
time, he combines this with the more congenial view, derived by 
Alexandrian Judaism from Plato, of the contrast between the 
transitory shows or shadows of this world and the genuine, ideal 
realities of the heavenly sphere.* This is one of the genuinely 
Philonic antitheses in the epistle. ‘The shadow is opposed to the 
substance, the earthly to the heavenly, the present to the future, 
the ἀντίτυπα (94) to the ἀληθινά. As the sensuous and passing 
is thus set against the spiritual and absolute, there is a tendency 
to identify the latter with the future sphere. The ethical feeling 
of the writer occasionally breaks through this speculative and 
futuristic view (cp. e.g. 4% 1° 65) ; but, owing to his philosophical 
category of the antithesis between the phenomenal and the 
archetypal realities in heaven, the epistle seldom does more than 
hover “‘on the verge of that deeper truth for which its theological 
scheme allows no room—that the world of the eternal is already 
ours, in so far as we have entered into the spirit of Christ” 
(E. F. Scott, Zhe Apologetic of the NT, 1907, p. 206). Hebrews 
thus represents a less developed stage in the application of 
Alexandrian Judaism to Christianity than the Fourth gospel, while 
at the same time it works out the Logos-predicates with regard 
to the person of Christ independently of Paul or even of the 
autor ad Ephesios. 


The world in which this author lived is revealed further by his knowledge 
of Philo (see above, p. 27), and also by his use of the Wisdom of Solomon 


* < Actual Judaism is merely the copy, the shadow, the reflection, of 
an archetypal religion standing above it, from which such primary types as 
the high priest Melchizedek project into it. What Christianity is in its 
true essence, what distinguishes it from Judaism, is ideally and essentially 
present in those archetypes” (Baur, Church History, i. 117). ‘* The author of 
Hebrews . . . says that Christianity is eternal, just as it shall be everlasting, 
and that the true heavenly things of which it consists thrust themselves 
forward on to this bank and shoal of time and took cosmical embodiment, in 
order to suggest their coming, everlasting manifestation. The whole apostolic 
exegesis of the OT is but an application of the principle of finding the end in 
the beginning” (A. B. Davidson, Bzdlicai and Literary Essays, 317). 


428 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


(cp. Rendall, 7heology of Hebrew Christians, 53-58), whose terminology is 
often applied to the definitely Christian conception of the epistle, as is evident 
from. several passages, ¢.g. (besides those noted on p. 26), 5° (= Wisd 415 of 
Enoch), 6° (= Wisd 6°), 8 (= Wisd 9°, Apoc. Bar 4°), 113 (=Wisd οἱ 137), 
11 (= Wasd 40 15... 18 0-ΞΞ- νιο τ 3) rn |(—=\Wisd) 189)» Lie — isd 
1018f- τὸ 8), 1214 (= Wisd 639), 12. (=Wisd 1210. 0) and 137 (= Wisd 21), 
In this respect, the writer resembled Paul (see above, p. 26), but his 
employment of these Hellenistic Jewish categories is much more thorough- 
going. For his use (see pp. 25-26) of Sirach, compare 25=Sir 17! (4 Es. 
8211. etc.), 24=Sir 1418 (171), 26=Sir 41} (ἐπιλαμβ. of σοφία), 43=Sir 1719 
(239), 115=Sir 44! (49/4), 1127=Sir 44 (1 Mac 2°), 12=Sir 25%, and 
19¢=Sir gat 

These data converge on the conclusion that Paul had nothing 
to do with the epistle; the style and religious characteristics 
put his direct authorship out of the question, and even the 
mediating hypotheses which associate Apollos or Philip or Luke 
with him are shattered upon the non-Pauline cast of speculation 
which determines the theology. But it is superfluous to labour 
this point. As Professor Saintsbury puts it, in dealing with 
another equally obvious result of literary criticism, “one need 
not take sledge-hammers to doors that are open.” 

The hypothesis of Paul’s authorship, once ardently defended by editors 
like Forster (Apostolical Authority of the Ep. to the Hebrews), Moses Stuart, 
Wordsworth, and Hofmann, still lingers in one or two quarters, especially 
among Roman Catholic scholars (cp. Jacquier, i. 486), who feel bound by 
the luckless decision of the Council of Trent. Heigl’s recent essay is the most 
thoroughgoing presentation of this view. It would be ungenerous even to 
mention the hypothesis nowadays, except in order to throw the idiosyncrasies 


of the auctor ad Hebreos into relief, and to determine approximately his 
relation to the earlier Pauline standpoint. 


§ 3. Structure.—Hebrews is, like James, a homily in epistolary 
form; but while the latter possesses an introduction and no con- 
clusion, Heb. has a conclusion, without any introductory greet- 
ing. This is the problem which meets the literary critic on the 
threshold. ‘Two solutions have been proposed. Either (a) the 
original paragraph of greeting has been omitted, deliberately or 
accidentally, or (4) the writing never possessed any. 

(a) An accident was always possible (cp, p. 52) to the opening of a docu- 
ment, whether treatise or letter, and this hypothesis explains the phenomenon 


of He 1 (so, ¢.g., Barth, V. Monod) at any rate less unsatisfactorily than the 
conjectures * that the original address was omitted because it contained severe 


* «Unter allem Vorbehalt wage ich die Vermutung, dass—wenn nicht gar 
eine Deckadresse gebraucht worden war—die Adresse vorsichtshalber fortge- 


HEBREWS 429 


blame (Kurtz), or the name of some church’ too insignificant for the inclusion 
of the writing as a semi-catholic epistle in the Canon. Harnack’s conjecture, 
that it was suppressed for the further reason that a prejudice existed against 
women as composers of scripture, falls with his ingenious idea that Prisca was 
the authoress (see p. 441). On the hypothesis that Hebrews was written by 
some non-apostolic early Christian like Barnabas or Apollos, it might be 
possible to explain the deletion of the address as due to canonical interests 
(so, ¢.g., Overbeck, of. c#¢t. 9-18). But some trace of the original would 
surely have survived ; besides, had it been felt necessary (as Overbeck 
pleads) to claim the writing for Paul, an alteration would have been more 
natural than a total excision (cp. Zahn’s GA. i. 300 f.). 

(4) Unless an accident is supposed to have happened (as, ¢.g., in the case 
of 3 Mac.), the likelihood, therefore, is that Hebrews never had any address. 
I Jn 114 is hardly a parallel, for there the epistolary aim is definitely expressed 
at the close of the opening sentence (καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν ἡμεῖς ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ 
ἡμῶν ἢ πεπληρωμένη), whereas the word wrzte never occurs in Hebrews, 
and it is not until 3! that the author definitely addresses his readers, not 
until 5" that he puts himself into any direct relation to them. Even 
Barnabas and 2 Clement get sooner into touch with their readers. The 
former at least has a short, vague greeting, and intrinsically He 11 might have 
followed a greeting like Ja 11, Barn 11, or Eph 113, Still, there is no 
decisive reason why the writing should not originally have begun as it does 
in its canonical form, except the natural hesitation whether an admission of 
this kind, which attributes an unexampled opening to the epistle, does not 
conflict with the data of the conclusion. The latter, taken together with the 
sonorous, impersonal opening, raises the further problem, whether Hebrews 
was originally an epistle or a treatise (cp. M‘Neile, /¢expreter, 1913, 156-160). 


Down to 1239 and indeed to 13’, there is nothing which 
might not have been originally spoken by a preacher to his 
audience.* The contents are certainly not impersonal, as if 
the writer were merely addressing an ideal public (Wrede) or 
writing a treatise for Christendom, but they are not strictly 
epistolary. ‘The author never names his audience directly, but 
passages like 511-612 1082 1,24. 1319 show that he was 
intimately acquainted with their local situation and religious 


lassen worden ist, vielleicht weil man die Uebermittlung Heiden anvertrauen 
musste und denen nicht sagen wollte, welche Art von ‘Rede’ sie beférderten, 
vielleicht, weil dem Briefschreiber aller Verkehr nach aussen untersagt war. 
und er die Aufmerksamkeit nicht durch zu deutliche Angaben an der Spitze 
des Briefs erregen durfte” (Julicher, Z7/. 132). Diogenes Laertius’ history 
of the philosophers also begins without any address, and yet (cp. 377 and 10”) 
it must have had some address or Eféstola dedicatoréa originally prefixed 
to it. 

* “* Beginning with a rhetorical introduction, it resembles in general a 
letter as little as the oration pvo /ege Manilia. As far as the doxology in 1334 
it is entirely a rhetorical production ” (Hug, 2 2711, ii. 421). 


430 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


needs, and it is impossible to explain away such allusions as 
rhetorical abstractions. The we and you may be the speech of 
a Christian addressing a congregation,—some parts of Hebrews 
in all likelihood represent homilies or the substance of homilies 
written out,*—but the evangelist or preacher knew whom he 
was counselling. Hebrews is not a διατριβή in the form of an 
epistle, as 4 Maccabees is in the form of an address. While 
it probably represents a homily or sermon written out (like 
2 Clement) by its author, its epistolary form is neither (Deiss- 
mann, Bible Studies, 49-50) a piece of literary fiction nor added 
by a later hand (Overbeck, Lipsius in GGA., 1881, 359f.). The 
author had his church or community in view all along, and 
the difficulty of explaining why Hebrews lacks any address is 
not sufficient to compel a recourse to any theory (so, 6.9.» 
Reuss) which would treat the epistolary conclusion (1318@2)-25) 
as irrelevant to the main purpose of the writing (see Appendix Ὁ). 


Perdelwitz, who regards even 13!® as spoken by the preacher to his 
audience, takes 1335. as a postscript added dbreuz manu by some bearer of 
the λόγος παρακλήσεως who wrote out a copy and forwarded it to some 
Italian church (in Rome ?); but neither the style nor the contents bear out 
this hypothesis. Ifa bearer or scribe could append such a note, why not the 
author himself? G. A. Simcox (#7. x. 430- 432), taking 13 as an ἐπιστολὴ 
συστατικὴ (to which alone, not to 1-12, the words of 13” apply) appended 
to the homily, argues from the double reference to the ἡγούμενοι in 137 7 
that it contains in whole or part two commendatory notes, perhaps from Paul 
or some other apostle. ‘‘If the work in the oldest form known had one 
or more letters of commendation (or excerpts from such) attached to it, 
tradition would ascribe the whole to the higher authority.” But 13” (καὶ 
γὰρ διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ὑμῖν) refers back to passages like 5" (περὶ 
οὗ πολὺς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος κτλ.) and 1183 (καὶ τί ἔτι λέγω; ἐπιλείψει με γὰρ 
διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος κτλ.). To judge from 1 P 513 and Barn 1° (ἐσπούδασα 
κατὰ μικρὸν ὑμῖν πέμπειν, cp. 15 ὑποδείξω ὀλίγα), it seems to have been almost 
a conventional mode of expression in early Christian epistolography. 

§ 4. Traces in later literature.—(Leipoldt, GX. § 29.) The first 
traces of Hebrews in the early Christian literature occur in Clem. Rom., who 
quotes tacitly (and with his usual freedom) from 1** in xxxiv. 2-5, citing also 
Ps 1044 as in He 17. Similarly 218 31 are echoed in xxxiv. 1, and 12" in xix. 2, 
whilst xxi. 9 (ἐρευνητὴς γάρ ἐστιν ἐννοιῶν καὶ ἐνθυμήσεων" οὗ ἡ πνοὴ αὐτοῦ ἐν 
ἡμῖν ἐστίν, καὶ ὅταν θέλῃ ἀνελεῖ αὐτήν) recalls 412 (cp. xxvii, 1=10% 11”, and 
xxvii. 2--: 618). Other coincidences may go back either to an independent 
use of the LXX (e.g. xvii. 5 = 32, xliii. 1=3°) or to some common apocryphal 


* Cp. Clemen (Zxf.5 iii. 392 f.) for 3-4, one of the sections which might 
have been originally a λόγος παρακλήσεως (Ac 435 131) or part of a synagogal 
address (Perdelwitz ; M. Jones, Zxf.® xii. 426f.). 


HEBREWS 431 


source (e.g. xvii. 1ΞΞ 1137. 39) just as the common order οὗ LXX :itations 
occasionally may indicate an independent use of some messianic florzlegvum ; 
but there can be no hesitation in admitting that reminiscences of Hebrews 
occur in the later Roman writing. Almost equally clear is the use of the 
epistle in Barnabas* (cp. Bartlet’s careful statement in ΜΖ. 6-11). 
Possibly, if one may judge from A/agn. 3? and Philad. οἱ, Ignatius also ‘had 
the epistle to the Hebrews in his mind’ (Left.); but the evidence does not 
raise this above the level of probability, while the occurrence of sempzternus 
pontifex det filius (He 6° 7°) in 12? and of εὐλαβεία in 68 (cp. He 1238, Ps 21) 
hardly suffices to prove that Polykarp knew the epistle, any more than Did. 
4) can be regarded as an echo of He 137, Upon the other hand, 2 Clem. 
(i. 6=12), xi, 6=10%, xvi. 4=13)8, xx. 2=10*87) appears to presuppose it, 
and, as might be expected in a Roman writing, Hermas evidently was 
acquainted with it; cp. e.g. Ves. τι. iil. 2 (τὸ μὴ ἀποστῆναι or ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ξῶντος 
= 312, also III. vii. 2), Séme. 1. iii, (=1115-16 134), + 1x, ii, 2 (=10!), etc. 
(cp. Zahn’s ed. pp. 439-452). Justin Martyr also seems to have known it (cp. 
Engelhardt’s das Christenthum Just. pp. 367 f.) ; he calls Jesus ‘ the Son and 
Apostle of God’ (4fo/. i. 12, 63, cp. 3').£ Like 1 Peter and James, it was 
omitted in Marcion’s Canon and the Muratorian, but it was read by Clem. 
Alex. ,—who indeed quotes ‘the blessed presbyter’ (Pantzenus?) as believ- 
ing in its Pauline authorship,—TIrenzus possibly, and Tertullian, besides 
Pinytus, the Cretan bishop of Gnossus (Eus. 4. &. iv. 23. 8=He 5!2"4), and 
Theophilus of Antioch, The circulation of it as an edifying treatise, 
however, was wider than its recognition as a canonical scripture, which was 
slow and fitful, especially in the West. It was eventually included in the 
Syrian canon of Paul’s epistles (Gwilliam, #7. iii. 154-156; Salmon, /V7. 
605-607 ; W. Bauer, Der Apostolos der Syrer, 24f.), and accepted even at 
Rome as Pauline and therefore canonical (or, as canonical and therefore 
Pauline). The early fluctuation of opinion and the hesitation about its right 
to such a place are reflected in the remark of Amphilochius of Ikonium, the 
Cappadocian scholar (end of fourth century), τιγὲς δὲ φασὶν τὴν πρὸς 
Ἑβραίους νόθον | οὐκ εὖ λέγοντες" γνησία yap ἡ χάρις. 


It was in the course of its canonisation that the epistle 
probably received its present title, to correspond with those of 
the Pauline epistles alongside of which it was now ranked. We 
can only conjecture whether or not the addition of such a title 


* For the materials, cp. van Veldhuizen, de Brief van Barnabas (1901, 
Groningen), pp. 74f., 104f. J. Weiss’s scepticism (der Barnatasbrief 
kritisch untersucht, 1888, pp. 117 f.) is unjustified. 

t+ ‘‘One might almost say that He 134 is the text of this discourse in 
Sim. 1.” So Spitta (Ure. ii. 413), whose peculiar theory of the latter book 
obliges him, however, to explain away these coincidences. 

Φ Cp. also Déa/. 33 (Christ defined as ‘he who, according to the order of 
Melchizedek, is king of Salem and eternal priest of the Most High’)= 
He 5**. There are even traces in the Jewish rabbis of the second century 
of a polemic against the Christian use of the Melchizedek-legend (cp. Bacher’s 
Agada ὦ. Tannaiten?, i. 259). 


432 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


implied a theory of its Pauline authorship (or origin). In any 
casie πρὸς Ἕ βραίους (see p. 448) could not have been the original 
title of an epistle which presupposes a definite community 
(e.g. 137). No author, who wrote with such a specific com- 
munity in view, could have described his work as addressed 
‘to Jewish (Palestinian) Christians’ in general, as if it were an 
encyclical. Furthermore, the title is not even accurate, since 
the readers were not Jewish Christians. On the other hand, it 
is not known to have borne any other title. The idea (so from 
Semler, Ziegler, and Storr to Schleiermacher, Hilgenfeld, Késtlin, 
and Hofmann) that it was the epistle ad Alexandrinos included 
in the Muratorian Canon (‘fertur etiam ad Laodicenses, alia ad 
Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine finctee ad heresem Marcionis’) is 
untenable, whatever view be taken of the words ad heresem 
(Ξε πρὸς τὴν αἵρεσιν), If the latter mean ‘against, or bearing 
on, M.’s heresy,’ Hebrews shows no traces.of so direct a purpose. 
If they mean ‘in favour of M..,’ as is more probable, they describe 
Hebrews even less aptly ; whatever that epistle is, it is out of 
line with Marcion’s views of the OT religion. Besides, Hebrews 
(im its extant form) is not composed in Paul’s name. 


Ἑβραῖοι does not necessarily involve Palestinian origin (cp. 2 Co 11%, 
Phil 3°), but, as used by Christians of the second century, it would very 
naturally denote Jewish Christians of Palestine (cp. ¢.g. Eus. H. 2. iv. 5, 
vi. 14). Ποῦ δὲ οὖσιν ἐπέστελλεν ; Chrysostom asks in the preface to his 
commentary, and his answer is, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ ἐν ἱΙερυσολύμοις καὶ Παλαιστίνῃ. 
This interpretation, however, is derived from the title itself, not from any 
independent tradition, and the title itself was, like πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους, an 
editorial inaccuracy which originated at the time of the homily’s incorpora- 
tion in the Pauline canon. The fact that, on emerging from its local obscurity 
into the canon, it received so vague a title, shows that by this time, z.e. about 
half a century after its composition, the circumstances of its origin had been 
entirely lost sight of. In the absence of any other evidence, the early use of 
Hebrews by Clement of Rome may be allowed to tell in favour of its Roman 
destination. From Rome it would circulate to Alexandria. But even the 
scholars of the latter church had no idea of its origin or audience. So far as 
the authorship is concerned, the writing was evidently anonymous by the 
time that it rose into the light of the canon, though it is not so certain as 
Zahn (Zin/. § 45) contends, that Irenzeus and Hippolytus knew it as such. 
Had it been originally connected e.g. with the name either of Paul or of 
Barnabas, however, it is impossible to explain how the one tradition could 
have risen out of the other. The scholars of the Alexandrian church, where 
it first gained a canonical position, felt obvious difficulties in the Pauline 
authorship which was bound up with its claim to canonicity. Pantzenus (cp. 
Eus. H. £. vi. 14. 4) is said by Clement to have explained the absence of 


HEBREWS ee 


Paul’s vame by conjecturing that the apostle of the Gentiles considerately 
(διὰ μετριότητα) refrained from naming himself in an epistle addressed to 
Jewish Christians. Clement himself met the more serious difficulty of the 
style by supposing that Luke translated Paul into Greek; the omission of 
Paul’s name he prefers to ascribe to tact on the part of the latter, in view 
of the suspicions felt by Jewish Christians (Eus. . Z. vi. 14. 2f.). Origen 
also felt the discrepancy between the style of Paul and the style of Hebrews, 
but he contented himself with referring it to some unknown amanuensis (Eus. 
H. E. vi. 25. 11). 

§ 5. Zhe Pauline hvpothests.—The earliest hint of a Pauline 
authorship occurs towards the close of the second century, when 
Clement of Alexandria, who quotes it often as Pauline, reports a 
saying of ‘‘the blessed presbyter,” probably Pantzenus, to the 
effect that “since the Lord, being the apostle of the Almighty, 
was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as if sent to the Gentiles, did 
not subscribe himself as an apostle of the Hebrews, owing to his 
modesty ; but subscribed himself, out of reverence to the Lord, 
and since he wrote to the Hebrews out of his abundance, merely 
the herald and apostle of the Gentiles” (Eus. 27. Z. vi. 14), This 
belief in Paul’s authorship was natural, as Paul was the supreme 
letter-writer of the early church; but it was far from being 
unanimous even in Alexandria, where the beginning of the 
third century reveals divergent traditions attributing it to Paul, 
Clement of Rome, or Luke; while Origen, sensitive to the 
stylistic features of the epistle, refuses to connect it with Paul 
except by the medium of a Greek editor or (Ro 1622) amanu- 
ensis. Tis δὲ 6 γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν. 
The Pauline authorship was denied also by many in the Roman 

hurch (Eus. #. £. iii. 3, vi. 20),* till ecclesiastical considera- 
‘ons during the fourth century brought it into line with the 
Zastern church, where the epistle had been widely received as 
Pauline. 

The very church in which the first traces of the epistle occur was 
therefore opposed to Paul’s authorship, and later research has vindicated this 
position. For one thing, as Luther and Calvin clearly saw, Pau could never 
have described his religious position in the terms of 2°; his religious message 
and experience were mediated by no human agent (Gal 1112), and no explana- 
tion of 2° can avail to reconcile the strong :anguage of the apostle with this 
later writer’s admission of his indebtedness to apostolic preachers (cp. Bleek 
i. 285-295). Furthermore, the style and the vocabulary are alike decisive 


* As the ν.], τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου in : ΟΥ̓ was apparently known to Clem, 
Alex,, it must have been an early correction of the text in view of the Pauline 
by pothesis. 
28 


434 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


The careful syntax, purged of anacoloutha, the regular succession of periods, 
and the elaborate rhetorical structure of the whole writing, show no trace of 
Paul’s rugged, broken style. We might contrast the auctor ad Hebreos and 
Paul, in fact, as Johnson contrasted Dryden and Pope. Paul occasionally 
uses allegories and types; but these are the characteristic atmosphere of 
Hebrews, which also prefers (except in 2), in its OT citations (see Bleek, i. 
338f., and Biichel, SA, 1906, 506-591), the formula the holy Spirit saith or 
God saith to the Pauline methods of introducing such quotations (γέγραπται, 
λέγει ἡ γραφή, etc.). Both form and formula differentiate the two writers. 
Their conceptions of faith, the Law, and the Spirit are equally dissimilar, 
and these reach their height in the view of Christ’s priesthood, which has no 
analogy in the early Christian literature until the Fourth gospel (cp. Jn 171). 
It follows that the vocabulary is distinctive, marked by groups of words 
ending in -lfew (ἀνακαιν., ἐνυβρ., καταρτ., mep., προσοχθ., mplfew, τυμπαν- 
ἐζειν) and -σις (e.g. ἀθέτη., ἄθλη., alve., ἀπόλαν., μετάθε., τελειώ., ὑπόστασι:), 
and by the absence of Pauline phrases like Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς. The author’s 
interest, ¢.g., in Leviticalism as a poor and temporary proviso for the religious 
τελείωσις of Christianity, leads him to view the result of Christ’s redeeming 
death as sanctifying (ἁγιάζειν), not as justifying (δικαιοῦν) ; and such radical 
differences of thought partly account for the differences in terminology 
between him and his great predecessor. In short, as Origen candidly 
allowed, ‘‘the style of the epistle to the Hebrews has not the apostle’s 
roughness of utterance (τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικόν) ; . . . that it is more Hellenic 
in its composition (συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως), will be admitted by every one who 
is able to discern differences of style. . . . I should say that the thoughts are 
the apostle’s, while the style and diction belong to some one who wrote down 
what the apostle said, and thus, as it were, gave an exposition of (σχολιο- 
γραφήσαντος) his master’s utterances” (Eus. H. £. vi. 25). 

Even this secondary Paulinism of Hebrews is indefensible, however, 
although the Alexandrian critics’ hypothesis has been variously worked out 
by later scholars, who regard Hebrews as (a) pseudonymous, (6) a translation, 
or (c) a joint-production. None of these theories is satisfactory. 

(a) The older view (cp. Schwegler, WZ. ii. 304f.), that Hebrews was 
written by a Paulinist who wished to pass off his work as Paul’s, has been 
revived in a modified form by Wrede (so Wendland). He argues that the 
anonymous author, on coming towards the end of his treatise, suddenly 
determined to throw it into the shape of an epistle written by Paul in prison ; 
hence the allusions in 13 which are a cento of Pauline phrases (especially 
from Philippians). But, apart from other reasons (cp. Knopf in 7ZZ., 1906, 
168f.; Burggaller, pp. 111 f.), it is difficult to see why he did not insert 
more allusions in the body of the writing ; the bare references at the close are 
too ambiguous and incidental to serve the purpose of putting the epistle under 
Paul’s egis. Had a Paulinist desired to create a situation for the epistle in 
Paul’s lifetime (like that, ¢.g., of 1 Co 16”, Philem ™, Ph 2) 2f-), he would 
have written more simply, as, ¢.g., the author οι Tim. (15). ‘ Freilich bleibt 
uns manches undurchsichtig; aber das ist doch nur der klarste Beweis, 
dass dasselbe nicht, wie man annehmen wollte, erst spiter angefugt ist, da 
sonst der Interpolator doch wohl nur allgemein verstindliche Dinge in ihm 
angebracht hatte’ (Weiss, 7U. xxxv. 3. 109). 


HEBREWS 435 


(δ) The hypothesis (J. Hallet in Wolf's Cura Philologica, iv. 806-837 ; 1. 
D. Michaelis, Biesenthal) that the epistle represents the translation by Luke 
or some other disciple of Paul’s original Hebrew, arose from the discrepancies 
of style which were early felt between it and the Pauline epistles (so from 
Clement of Alex. to Thomas Aquinas), but it never had any basis in the 
internal evidence of the epistle, and may be dismissed as a curiosity of criticism. 
No Hebrew (Aramaic) original has ever been heard of in connection with the 
epistle. The whole argument swings from the language of the LXX (see 
especially 1° 105) as opposed to the Hebrew text; the special Gk. sense of 
διαθήκη Ξεϊεβίατηεπὶ (9!5-2°)* was unknown to Hebrew usage; and it would be 
difficult in a version to account, not only for the rhetorical finish, but also for 
paronomasiz and verbal assonances like those of 11 58: 14 87 10% 39 1314 ete, 

(ὦ) The joint-authorship theory, in its later forms, tends more and more to 
refer the ideas as well as the diction to the Paulinist who co-operated with Paul, 
and may therefore be discussed conveniently under the question of the authorship. 


ὃ 6. Authorship.—(a) The combination of Paul and Luke, 
suggested by Clem. Alex. (cp. Eus. &. £. vi. 14. 2-3, καὶ τὴν πρὸς 
Ἑβραίους δὲ ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου μὲν εἶναί φησι, γεγράφθαι δὲ 
Ἑβραίους ἑβραϊκῇ φωνῇ, Λουκᾶν δὲ φιλοτίμως αὐτὴν μεθερμην- 
εύσαντα ἐκδοῦναι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ὅθεν τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶτα εὑρίσκεσθαι 
κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ταύτης τε τῆς ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῶν πράξεων, also 
vi. 25), has attracted many scholars from Eusebius (7. £. iii. 38) 
to Calvin, Hug, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Field, Zill, and Huyghe. 
Some (e.g. Grotius, and recently W. M. Lewis, Bzd/ical World, 
August 1898, April 1899, with A. R. Eagar, 2.2.5 x. 74-80, 
110-123, ‘The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews’) 
attribute practically the entire authorship to him, mainly = on 
the score of the undoubted affinities of language and style 
between Hebrews and the Lucan writings. These affinities 
present a curious problem, but they are quite inadequate to 
prove that Luke wrote all three works. 


Some (¢.g. ἄγκυρα 619-- Ac 277° ἀναδέχομαι 117=Ac 287, ἀναθεώρεω 137 
=Ac 17%, ἀνώτερον 10°8=Lk 14”, ἀπαλλάσσω 25=Lk 128, ἀπογράφεσθαι 
123=Lk 25, βοηθεία 416-Ξ Ας 2717, ἱλάσκεσθαι 2"=Lk 188, καταφεύγω 6 = 


* This interpretation of διαθήκη (which, as Calvin saw, was itself fatal to 
the translation theory) is preferable on many counts to the more usual one of 
covenant. ‘‘In the papyri, from the end of cent. iv. B.c. down to the 
Byzantine period, the word denotes ¢estament and that alone, in many scores 
of documents. We possess a veritable Somerset House on a small scale in our 
papyrus collections, and there is no other word than διαθήκη used” (Moulton 
in Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, p. 497). 

t ‘‘ He certainly could not have been the author. The striking contrast 
between his account of the agony in the garden and that given in the Epistle 
is sufficient to settle that question” (A. B. Bruce, DB. ii. 338). 


436 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


Ac 145, κεφάλαιον 81=Ac 22%, and παροξυσμός 10%=Ac 15™) are used ina 
different sense. In Ac 72° and He 11” ἀστεῖος is a reminiscence of Ex 2%, 
which may have been independent in each case, while ἔντρομος (Ac 7°? 16% = 
He 12”) is probably,* in Heb., an emendation of ἔκτρομος. Similarly ἐκλείπω 
does not count, for in He 1!” it occurs in an OT citation ; and the same fact 
rules out ἄστρον (1113), ἐνοχλέω (1215), ἐσώτερον (61), ἦχος (121%), μετόχοι t 
(19), ὀρθός (1218), παραλύομαι (1212), παρίημι (1213), πολίτης (811), συναντάω 
(71), and φύω (121); while παλαιοῦσθαι, which in 1” is also part of a citation, 
is differently applied in 818 and Lk 1233, κατάπαυσις in Ac 7* occurs in an OT 
quotation, καταπαύω in Ac 1418 has a different sense and construction from 
those of Heb., and παροίκεω (119=Lk 245) is also employed ina different 
construction. No stress can be laid on the further coincidence that both 
writers mention the Red Sea (11°9=Ac 7°), or use πατριάρχης (Ac 2” etc. 
=He 7‘). Thus an examination of the language reveals only ¢ about (a) 6 
words peculiar in the NT to Hebrews and the Gospel of Luke, with (4) 6 
peculiar to Acts and Hebrews, and two (διαβαίνω and διατίθεμαι) which occur 
in all three. Of (a), three (feparela, λύτρωσις, and τελείωσι9) are plainly due, 
as is the specially frequent use of λαός, to a common use of the LXX by 
writers who treat of the same or similar subjects, while els τὸ παντελές is too 
frequent in the Hellenistic literature to make its preservation in Heb. and Lk.’s 
gospel more than an accidental coincidence. This leaves merely πόρρωθεν 
and εὔθετος in this class, while ἀρχηγός ὃ and εἴσειμι in (4), with καίτοι and 
σχεδόν and ὕπαρξις, cannot be said to denote any special or striking 
affinities between Acts and Heb. (ἀσάλευτος being employed in quite a 
different sense) in point of vocabulary.|| This verdict is corroborated by the 
absence from Heb. of several characteristically Lucan words and phrases, ¢.g., 
ἄν or ris with the optative, ἀπὸ τοῦ viv, ye, δὲ καί, ἐγένετο in its various con- 
structions, εἴη, ἔχω with infin., ὀνόματι, παραχρῆμα, πράσσω, and ws (=when). 
An examination of the style and vocabulary of Heb. and Luke hardly tends to 
indicate even a special amount of material common to both; it certainly 
discourages any attempt to ascribe the epistle to the author of the third gospel 
and of Acts. Luke ‘could report a speech after the manner of a Hebrew 
rabbi or of a Greek rhetorician ; and it may be rash to say that he cou/d not 
have written a hortatory work in the style of Hebrews. But when we 
compare Ac 138-4! 2817-28 with He 3!?-4!8, not to say with 641%, we see that 


* The variant in Ac 21™ also lowers the force of the use of ἐπιστέλλειν 
here and in He 13”, while the construction in Ac 15” is different. 

+ The solitary Lucan use (57) is, moreover, quite different in sense. 

~ Heb. has about four words really peculiar to itself and Mt., and the same 
number in common with Mk. 

§ With ‘salvation’ in the context of Ac 58] and He 2”, 

- || The same holds true of such phrases as καὶ αὐτός, κυκλοῦσθαι (of cities), 
μάστιξ (literally, He 11° =Ac 22%), ἐν τῷ with infin., περικεῖσθαι with accus., 
and the use in Heb. of πάσχειν by itself for the sufferings of Jesus. On the 
other hand, Heb. avoids σύν, except in compounds, and omits several distinctly 
Lucan phrases and expressions like προσεύχομαι, while a passage like He 2} 
shows affinities rather with Mt. (2810, cp. Jn 20}. Heb. once (65) uses 
γεύομαι with the accus. (cp. Jn 2!°); Luke never does. 


HEBREWS 437 


St. Luke did not in fact write like Hebrews, even in hortatory passages’ 
(W. H. Simcox, Writers of the NT, 1890, p. 48).* Community of 
atmosphere is all that can fairly be postulated. 


The claims of (2) Barnabas, which have been advocated, 6.5.» 
by Schmidt (Zin/. 289 f.), Hefele (Apostolic Fathers, pp. xi-xiv), 
Ullmann (SK., 1828, 377f.), Wieseler (Chronologie, 478 f.; SK, 
1867, pp. 665f.), Maier, Twesten, Grau, Volkmar, Thiersch 
(joint-authorship of Paul), Ritschl (SK., 1866, 89 f.), Renan (iv. 
pp. 210f.), Kiibel, Salmon (JZ. 424f.), B. Weiss, Gardiner, 
Ayles, Blass, Walker (#7. xv. 142-144), Edmundson, Riggenbach, 
Prat (Théologie de S. Paul, 502), Barth, Gregory (Canon and Text 
of NT, 1908, 223-224), Heinrici (Der litt. Charakter d. neutest. 
Schriften, 1908, 71-73), Dibelius and Endelmann, have the 
support of an early tradition (cp. Tertullian’s de pudicitia, 20: 
exstat enim et Barnabe titulus ad Hebreos), unless Tertullian 
confused Barnabas with Hebrews—which is unlikely, as he 
explicitly quotes He 618, The quotation is only given as a 
proof ‘ex redundantia’; still, the tradition probably reflected not 
only the North African church’s view or a Montanist’s opinion, 
but some Roman tradition. In the Zvactatus Origenis de libris 
ss. Scripturarum (ed. Batiffol, Paris, 1900, p. 108), as by Philas- 
trius, He 13!5 is quoted as a word of ‘sanctissimus Barnabas.’ 
It may be admitted that Barnabas, as a Levite of the Levant, 
with gifts of edification (vids παρακλήσεως, Ac 4°), would suit 
several characteristics of the epistle. As the inaccuracies with 
regard to the worship refer not to the temple but to the taber- 
nacle, it is hardly fair to press them against the likelihood of 
his authorship, on the ground that he would have been well 
informed about the temple-cultus at Jerusalem. On the other 
hand, his relation to the original gospel was probably closer 
than that implied in 2%, and the rise of the Pauline tradition 
is inexplicable if Barnabas (or indeed any other name) had 
been attached to the epistle from the first. His reputed con- 
nection with the temple (Ac 486), the existence of the epistle 
of Barnabas with its similar Judaistic themes, and perhaps 
the coincidence of Ac 4867 and He 1332, may quite well have 


* Cp. a paper by the same writer in Zx.° viii. 180-192 on ‘The Pauline 
Antilegomena.’ The differences of the Lucan style and that of Heb. are 
discussed excellently by Dr. F. Gardiner ( 78.2., 1887, pp. 1-27). 

+ A similar instance is pointed out in the attribution of Ps 127 to Solomow 
on the score of 1272 ΞΞ 2S 1274, 


438 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


led to the guess that he was the author of this anonymous 
scripture. 


Both of the inaccuracies are due to the later Jewish traditions which the 
author used for his description of the Levitical cultus. The daily sin-offering 
of the high priests (7537) is a fusion of their yearly sin-offering on the day of 
atonement and of the daily sacrifice which, according to Philo (de Speczal. 
Legibus, ili. 23, οὕτως kal τοῦ σύμπαντος ἔθνους συγγενὴς Kal ἀγχιστεὺς κοινὸς 
ὁ ἀρχιερεύς ἐστι. . . εὐχὰς δὲ καὶ θυσίας τελῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν κτλ. ; 
rabbinic evidence collected by Delitzsch in Zeztschrift fiir die Luther. Theol. 
und Kirche, 1860, 593f., cp. also Schiirer, G/V.‘ ii. 347f.), they offered. 
The golden altar of incense (94) is placed inside the holy of holies, instead of 
the holy place, by a similar reliance upon later Jewish tradition (4..σ. Apoc. 
Bar 67: et uidi eum descendisse in sancta sanctorum et sumsisse inde uelum 

«ον et propitiatorium et duas tabulas . . . et thuribulum, etc.), just as the 
author turns the pot of manna into gold after the precedent of the LXX 
(Ex 16%), which Philo had already followed (De Congressu eruditionts gratia, 
23: ἐν στάμνῳ χρυσῷ). The two passages bring out (a) the dependence of 
the author on the LXX and on rabbinic traditions mediated by Josephus * 
and Philo, with (4) his total indifference to the second temple of Judaism. 


(c) Clement of Rome (Erasmus, Reithmayr, Bisping, 
Cornely) has also early traditional support; but the marked 
differences of style alone are sufficient to refute any such 
hypothesis, which probably arose from the fact that his epistle 
contains several indubitable allusions to Hebrews. 

Outside the pale of tradition, the imagination of later editors 
has turned to (i.) Apolios, (ii.) Silas (Silvanus), (iii.) Peter, (iv.) 
Aristion, (v.) Philip, and (vi.) Prisca. The claims of (i.) Apollos 
have been favoured more or less confidently, after Luther,t by 
Semler (doubtfully), Osiander, Ziegler, Bleek, Reuss, de Wette, 


* Thus 9”! echoes the tradition preserved in Josephus, Amt. iii, 8. 6. 
Dibelius argues that Mark (cp. 15%; Zahn, WAZ., 1902, 729-756) could 
only have derived the symbolical trait of the rent veil from Hebrews (cp. 
619-2 98 1019-20), ¢.¢,, from his relative and teacher, Barnabas (Col 419), the 
author. But it is not certain that this conception was peculiar to Hebrews. 

t Cp. Jerome, de uzr. tnlustr. 5, epistola autem que fertur ad Hebreos 
non eius [z.¢. Pauli] creditur propter stili sermonisque dissonantiam, sed 
uel Barnabe iuxta Tertullianum uel Luce euangeliste iuxta quosdam uel 
Clementis Romane postea ecclesize episcopi, quem aiunt sententias Pauli 
proprio ordinasse et ormasse sermone. Cp. Eus. &. 45. iii, 38. 2-3. 
Jerome consoles himself by reflecting (ep. 129) that, although the majority 
assign it either to Barnabas or to Clement, ‘nihil interesse, cuius sit, cum 
ecclesiastici uiri sit et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur.’ 

t The conjecture of Apollos’ authorship was not first made by Luther ; 
he was only the first, so far as we can ascertain, to mention it (‘etliche 
meinen, sie sei St. Lucas, etliche St, Apollo,’ cp. Leipoldt’s GA. ii. 77). 


HEBREWS 439 


Kurtz, Schott, Liitterbeck (WZ Lehrbegriffe, ii. 101 f.), Liinemann, 
Tholuck, Credner, Riehm (doubtfully), Feilmoser (Zix/. 359 f.), 
Alford,* Moulton, G. Meyer, Hilgenfeld (γε. 76f.), Plumptre 
(Exp. i. 329f., 409f.),t Bartlet (28.1 xiii. 191), Pfleiderer 
(Ure. iii. 282), Albani, Buchel, Farrar, Selwyn, and (?) von Soden 
(“This Apollos—or whoever he may be—has the noble distinc- 
tion of having been the first to lead Alexandria to Bethlehem,” 
EBi.2000). Belser (£in/. 600 f.), though obliged by the Council 
of Trent to defend Paul’s authorship in some shape or form, 
believes, like Liitterbeck, that Apollos wrote the epistle, but that 
Paul added the closing paragraphs. Klostermann (of. cit. 55 f.), 
conjecturing πρὸς Βεροιαίους as the original form of the title, 
supposes that the epistle was written by Apollos to the Jewish- 
Christian community of Berea (Ac 17°), while Schtitze (A/agazin 
Jiir Evang. Theol. u. Kirche, 1904, 112f., 275f.) holds that 
Apollos wrote it to some Jewish-Christian house-church in Rome 
(cp. Ro 163%). The biblical learning of Apollos, his Alexandrian 
training, and his relation to Paul and the Pauline circle (He 1319 
=1 Co 161012), are all adduced as arguments why this teacher 
might have written Hebrews. ‘Paul laid the foundation; the 
author of Hebrews built on it, not with wood or hay or stubble, 
but with gold, silver, precious stones. Should it have been 
Apollos to whom we owe this epistle, then would that saying be 
true: Paul planted, Apollos watered” (Resch, Paulinismus, Ὁ. 
506, echoing the similar remarks of Luther and Tindale). But 
the entire absence of any early tradition tells strongly against this, 
the most plausible of all conjectures drawn from purely internal 
evidence. (ii.) Silas (Silvanus) was no doubt a member of the 
Pauline circle, who was also associated with Timotheus, and con- 
nected somehow with the composition of 1 Peter (a writing allied 
to Hebrews) ; but these data are too slight to support the weight 
of any hypothesis (Mynster, Boehme, Riehm, Godet doubtfully, 
Wohlenberg in VXZ., 1913, 7521.) which would attribute Hebrews 
to a man of whom so little is known. (111.) The resemblances 


* Alford (pp. 71-72) ingeniously pleads that Apollos modestly shrank 
from putting his own name forward, to avoid suspicion of rivalry with Paul, 
and that Clement similarly refrained from quoting the epistle by the author’s 
name in writing to a church where there had been a danger of ““ rivalry 
between the fautors of the two teachers.” 

+ Plumptre credited Apollos not only with Hebrews but with the Wisdom 
of Solomon, the latter being written, of course, before his conversion. 


440 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


(Rendall, Theology of Heb. Christians, 42-45), between Hebrews 
and 1 Peter, which cover the thoughts no less than the style of 
both epistles, are not insignificant. Both describe Christ as the 
Shepherd (He 137° = 1 P 2% 5%), and use the phrase the blood 
of sprinkling (124 = 1 P 1*);* both conceive faith as steadfast 
reliance on the unseen God under stress of trial, hold up Christ’s 
example under sufferings, and attach the same disciplinary value 
to human suffering; both use αἷμα ἄμωμον, ἀντίτυπος, ξένοι καὶ 
παρεπίδημοι, etc., and there are further parallels in τ P 2% = 
Heiis3a Pig? ere vray σα 34 = Here! 2 Poe 
He 777, 1 P 44 = He 11%, x P 510 = He 13-22 etc. But 
such correspondences cannot be mixed up with a supposed 
allusion in 2° to the incidents of Jn 1°42, in order to support 
the hypothesis that Peter actually wrote Hebrews (A. Welch, 
The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1899, pp. 1-33). 
At most they suggest a dependence of the one writing upon the 
other, possibly no more than a common milieu of Christian 
feeling. ‘The natural inference from them is that the author 
was either a personal disciple of St. Peter or a diligent student 
of his epistle” (Rendall). The claims of (iv.) Aristion, the 
supposed author of Mk 16%, have been recently proposed 
by J. Chapman (Revue Bénédictine, 1905, 50-62) and argued 
by R. Perdelwitz (ZVW., 1910, 105-110) on the ground that 
the sharp tone of He 646 and 107627 agrees with the trend 
of the teaching quoted by Irenzus from the presbyter-circles 
(adv. haer. iv. 28. 1, iv. 40), and also with that of the newly 
discovered fragment of Mk 16% (see pp. 240f.), where ἄλλα 
δεινά are supposed to refer to the fate of apostates. Hence 
all three converge on the same author. But even if Aristion 
were the author of the Mark-ending, these conceptions are far 
too general and incidental to be made the basis of any such 
argument. (v.) Philip the deacon (cp. W. M. Ramsay, Zxf.5 ix. 
407-422, Luke the Physician and other Studies, 1908, pp. 301- 
308) is also conjectured to have written the epistle from the 
church of Czesarea (spring of A.D. 59) after discussions with Paul 
on topics raised by the local leaders, to reconcile the Jewish 
party in the Jerusalem church to Paulinism (Paul adding the 
last verse or two). E. L. Hicks (Zhe Interpreter, 1909, pp. 245 f.), 
denying the Pauline postscript, argues for the same origin, 


*’Apxnyés is common to Hebrews (2° 12%) and Peter’s speech in 
Ac 3)° 5%! (see above, p. 436). 


HEBREWS 441 


mainly on the ground of linguistic analogy between Acbrews and 
Col-Eph. 
Those who (¢.g. Lewis, Ramsay, and Hicks) make Czsarea the locus of 


the epistle’s composition, argue that Italian Jewish pilgrims would be there 
en route to or from Jerusalem (see below, § 7). 


(vi.) Did Lady Pembroke collaborate with her brother in the 
composition of the Arcadia? The problem which rises for the 
student of English literature has been raised in connection with 
the NT by those who conjecture that Prisca and Aquila, Paul’s 
devoted and intelligent συνεργοί, composed the epistle to the 
Hebrews. Their claims are urged tentatively by Harnack (see 
above, p. 422, and his essay in SBBA. 1900, “tiber die beiden 
Recensionen d. Gesch. der Prisca u. des Aquila in Ac. Ap. 
181-27”), Schiele, Peake, and Rendel Harris (Szdelights on NT 
Research, pp. 148-176). Aquila’s name had been more than 
once suggested (¢.g. by Bleek and Alford), but Prisca is sup- 
posed, on this theory, to have been mainly responsible for the 
epistle, and traces of the wife rather than of the husband are 
sought for. The hypothesis certainly might account for the 
loss of the name, as canonical authority could hardly be claimed 
for a woman’s writing. But the positive arguments are not 
substantial. Paul had forbidden a woman even to teach in 
church (1 Co 14%), and the action described in Ac 186 does 
not prove that any exception would be made in favour of a gifted 
lady like Prisca, for the instruction of Apollos was private, not 
public. The supposed signs of femininity in Hebrews are 
extremely dubious; as a matter of fact, one would have expected 
a reference to Deborah instead of Barak in 1182, if a woman had 
written the epistle. The stylistic argument, that now a single 
now a plural authorship is implied, can hardly be maintained ; 
our brother (in 137%) means not our colleague, but the brother 
known to you and to me (the writer, cp. Z wi// see you); phrases 
like those in 11° and 1319 imply a single author, and the we 
which elsewhere occurs is either editorial or due to the figure of 
συγκατάβασις. The association of Aquila and Prisca with a house- 
church in Rome depends on a view of Ro 16 which is not tenable 
(see above, pp. 135f.). Finally, the masculine διηγούμενον in 11%” 
(cp. Deissmann, ΖΔ. v. 64) rather tells against the feminine 
hypothesis than otherwise ; and, had any exception been taken to 
Prisca, the deletion of her name from the address (leaving that of 


442 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


Aquila) would have been simpler than the excision of the address 
en bloc (cp. Wrede, 82-83). One has therefore (cp. Heigl, 149 f.) 
reluctantly to forego the romance which this hypothesis would 
introduce into the primitive Christian literature. 

All such attempts (cp. the summary in Heigl, of. cit. pr. 
125-156) to identify the author start from the assumption that 
he (or she) must be found among the figures which the Acts of 
the Apostles reveals in a relation to Timotheus corresponding to 
that of 13%, and (perhaps) in a more or less close connection 
with Paul. Neither of these postulates is necessary. Acts does 
not give any exhaustive list of the διδάσκαλοι in the first century 
of Christianity who were capable of writing such an epistle, and 
Timotheus, especially after Paul’s death, must have had a wider 
acquaintance than history records. In the absence of better 
evidence, we must resign ourselves to the fact that the author 
cannot be identified with any figure already known to us from 
tradition. He was probably a highly trained Hellenistic Jewish 
Christian, a διδάσκαλος of repute, with speculative gifts and 
literary culture; but to us he is a voice and no more. He left 
great prose to some little clan of early Christians, but who he 
was, and who they were, it is not possible, with such materials 
as are at our disposal, to determine. No conjecture rises above 
the level of plausibility. We cannot say that if the auctor ad 
Hlebreos had never lived or written, the course of early 
Christianity would have been materially altered. He was not 
a personality of Paul’s commanding genius. He did not make 
history or mark any epoch. He did not even, like the anonymous 
authors of Matthew’s gospel and the Fourth gospel, succeed in 
stamping his writing on the mind of the early church at large. 
But the later church was right in claiming a canonical position 
for this unique specimen of Alexandrine thought playing upon 
the primitive gospel, although the reasons upon which the claim 
was based were generally erroneous. 


The Jewish origin of the writer cannot, however, be deduced simply from 
his frequent citations of the OT—a feature which is as marked in Gentile 
Christians like Justin and Clement of Alexandria. Nor does the divergence 
of some of these quotations necessarily imply his employment of the Hebrew 
text as distinguished from the LXX. He may have had access to a different 
Greek version of the OT. Nor again does his acquaintance with Jewish 
customs and beliefs point inevitably to Jewish birth. Opportunities of 
familiarising oneself with Judaism abounded in the first centary. The influx 
of Jews into the Christian church, the widespread diffusion of the synagogues, 


HEBREWS 443 


and the knowledge of the LXX, opened ample channels of information to an 
interested inquirer. 


§ 7. Object and destinationThis anonymous epistle, like 
the Melchizedek whom it describes and allegorises, is dyevea- 
λόγητος, a lonely and impressive phenomenon in the literature of 
the first century, which bears even fewer traces of its aim than of 
its author. The Christians to whom it was addressed had been 
evangelised by disciples of Jesus (2%), and had passed through 
severe suffering on account of their faith shortly afterwards 
(1022f), A considerable time had elapsed since then, during 
which the early leaders of the church had died (1327). This 
internal trial, together with a contemporary pressure from the 
outside, threatened to prove dangerous to them on account of 
their dulness in the faith (51!-!2), and it is to this situation that 
the writer addresses himself. The author of Barnabas writes, 
iva μετὰ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν τελείαν ἔχητε τὴν γνῶσιν. Hebrews is 
also ἃ λόγος γνώσεως, though more on the lines of Paul’s γνῶσις 
(1 Co 128), intended to meet the special, practical needs of 
the church by furnishing the readers with conceptions of 
christology which will brace them against apostasy and dis- 
couragement. 

Ignatius, in a passage (Zva//. 5) which reminds us of He 511", excuses 
himself from imparting his deeper conception (ra ἐπουράνια γράψαι), on the 
ground that his readers, being babes, would be unable to digest the stronger 
food. On the other hand (fom. 3), he praises the Roman church for its 
propaganda (οὐδέποτε ἐβασκάνατε οὐδενί" ἄλλους éd:ddéare). A generation 
might, of course, have made a difference in the Roman church ; the counsel of 
the auctor ad Hebreos may have been laid to heart. Still, the probability is 
either that Hebrews was sent to some other church than that of Rome, or that 
it was addressed to some special circle or group in the Roman church, and 
not to the Roman Christians as a whole. Whatever was its original destina- 
tion (Italian, Palestinian, or Alexandrian), the original recipients were in all 
likelihood not any great church as a whole. The feeling of this ‘ special’ 
address is widespread in recent criticism of the epistle (see below), and 511-12 
is one of the passages which suggests it. At the same time, the words— 
ὀφείλοντες εἶναι διδάσκαλοι---δγα to be taken, as Wrede observes (p. 32), cum 
grano salis; they do not necessarily mean more than a reproachful reflection 
upon the backwardness and immaturity of the church or community which is 
addressed; at best, they only corroborate the impression, made by other 
allusions, that a small group or circle of Christians is in the writer’s purview. 


Much ink has been spilt on the question whether the epistle 
was meant for Jewish Christians in general (so, e.g., Baumgarten, 
Heinrichs, Schwegler, /VZ. ii. 304), or specifically in Asia Minor 


444 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


(C. F. Schmid),* Galatia (Storr, Mynster in Xveine Schriften, 
289f.), Thessalonika (Semler), Corinth (M. Weber), Ravenna 
(Ewald), Cyprus (Riggenbach), or Rome (so from Wettstein to 
Kurtz, Renan, Mangold, Schenkel, Alford, etc.). The Alex- 
andrian or Egyptian destination is upheld by J. E. C. Schmidt, 
Hilgenfeld, Baur (Zzn/. 385 f.), Wieseler (Chron. 481 f.), Kostlin 
(Theol. Jahro., 1853, 410f., 1854, 366f., 465 f.), Plumptre (Zxf.1 
i. 425 f.), and others; the Palestinian not only by Chrysostom, 
but recently by Bleek, Schott, de Wette, Delitzsch, Tholuck, 
Ewald, Bisping, Riehm, Moll, Grimm, Liinemann, Findlay, 
etc., either as Jerusalem (e.g. Langen, Zheol. Quartalschrift, 
1863, 379f.; Kay, Ayles), or as Czesarea (Moses Stuart, 
Bartlet), or Jamnia (Grimm, ZWTZ., 1870, pp. 19f.). Others 
(e.g. Ktibel and Rendall) fix on Syria, Hofmann on Antioch 
(written perhaps after Paul’s release from the Roman imprison- 
ment at Brundisium). 

On the general hypothesis which dominates the Palestinian 
and Alexandrian theories in particular, the writer has in view 
Jewish Christians who, like the primitive Palestinian church, 
clung still to the ritual system (Ac 246), valued highly the prestige 
and associations of the older cultus, and were in danger of 
allowing such fascinations to injure their sense of the finality 
and supremacy of Jesus and his religion. It is supposed that 
the imminent disaster of a.D. 70 moved the writer to appeal to 
them to be done with the old order, which was now breaking 
up, or that the shock of the temple’s overthrow threatened to 
shake the foundation of faith altogether. This view has no 
sure foothold either in the epistle itself or in history. ‘‘ Any 
positive grounds for such a theory are difficult to find. Such 
a despair ought to have seized all Hebrews alike, whether 
Christians or not; but there is no historical evidence of such 
a thing” (A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, 21). The crisis did not 
shake loyal Jews in their adherence to the old covenant,f and 

* Réth thinks of Gentile, Farrar and Bartlet of Jewish Christians at 
Ephesus ; Perdelwitz of Gentile Christians in one of the Asiatic centres. 

+ ‘The Priesthood, the Sacrifice, the Temple, as they all went down at 
one sudden blow, seemed scarcely to leave a gap in the religious life of the 
nation, The Pharisees had long before undermined these things, or rather 
transplanted them into the people’s homes and hearts. . . . Long before the 
Temple fell, it had been virtually superseded by hundreds of synagogues, 
schools, and colleges, where laymen read and expounded the Law and the 
Prophets” (Ε, Deutsch, Literary Remains, p. 139). See above, p. 3. It was 


HEBREWS 445 


there is no reason to imagine why it’ should have shaken Jewish 
Christians, particularly as this epistle has no thought of detaching 
its readers from the sacrificial system in vogue at Jerusalem. 
Its real object is very different. The author, who was well 
versed in the LXX, “but who only knew the temple-cultus from 
the OT, addresses himself to Gentile Christians who had become 
lax during a period of persecution; he essays to bring them 
back to the right path by proving from the OT the glory of the 
Christian faith” (Biichel, SX., 1906, 548). ‘‘ His knowledge of 
Judaism is apparently not derived from actual contact with it as 
a living religion; it is book-knowledge, like that of St. Clement 
of Rome” (CQR., 1903, 428). The LXX is his codex, and it is 
on the basis of the LXX, not on current politics, that he deploys 
his arguments. Apparently he is quite unconscious of any 
division between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The homily 
is not addressed to the former exclusively ; the seed of Abraham 
(21°) means not the Jewish race but human beings who 
believe (cp. Gal 37 γινώσκετε dpa ὅτι of ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι viol 
εἰσιν ᾿Αβραάμ, Ro 41 9°); the People (2117) are, as in 1 Peter, the 
elect of God (cp. 29 727 131%) from among men; such arguments 
and descriptions, as Paul’s letters and Clem. Rom. show, were 
more than applicable to Gentile Christians (compare, e.g., that of 
3-4 with 1 Co ro), and the tenor of the epistle on the whole indi- 
cates Gentile Christians who were perhaps affected by a speculative 
or theoretical Judaism as well as by the temptation of some cults 
in the surrounding paganism. The writer (so, eg., Roth, 
Weizsacker, Schiirer, Wendt, von Soden, McGiffert, Pfleiderer, 
Julicher, Harnack, Barth, Biichel, Wrede, Hollmann, Feine, 
Perdelwitz) knows no distinction between the two branches of 
the early church; he is addressing Christians, quite irrespective 
of their origin. 

Some of those who still defend the Jewish Christian 
nationality * of the readers (e.g. Zahn and Peake) now admit 
that there is no question of any relapse into legal and ceremonial 


the collapse of the Jewish worship, in fact, ‘‘ which compelled Christianity to 
find what is offered in our epistle—a theory of the disappearance of the old 
dispensation in the new” (W. Robertson Smith, 2.9 xi. 606). 

* Ably restated by G. Hoennicke (JC. 93-95), whose arguments, 
especially that based on the crucial passage in 6', are controverted by 
Perdelwitz in ZVW., 1910, 113f. B. Weiss’s latest monograph is a 
running critique, on the other hand, of von Soden’s arguments. 


446 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


Judaism. This concession not only removes the need of fixing 
on a pre-70 A.D. date, but affects the view taken of the destination. 
Of the three main directions in which the church has been sought, 
Jerusalem (or even Palestine) is the least appropriate. 


(a) Even at the eighth or ninth decade of the first century, and (much 
nore) prior to A.D. 70, there must have been many Christians in the local 
church who had heard the gospel from Jesus himself (contrast 28). (4) The 
language and argument of the epistle are not likely to have been appropriate 
to the church of Jerusalem. ‘‘It is difficult to suggest any period in the 
history of the Jerusalem-church during which a liberal-minded Hellenist like 
the author, who was probably ignorant of Hebrew, and who could in an off- 
hand way dispose of the whole OT ritual as ‘standing on meats and drinks 
and divers washings’ (9!°) and ‘useless’ (718), could have stood in such 
relations to this church” (A. B. Davidson, p. 14). The force of this argu- 
ment may be met by admitting that the circle addressed is not the whole 
church, but a Hellenistic section of it, but (c) the censure of 513 would be 
singularly inapplicable to any section of the mother-church of Jerusalem at 
any period, evenafter A.D. 70. (d) Though poverty was not incompatible with 
generosity (cp. 2 Co 83), the Jerusalem-church was notoriously rather the object 
than the source of charity (6° 10%4 13% 5 16), Finally, (e) the rigid use of the 
LXX does not favour an audience of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem or Palestine. 


The employment of the LXX and of the Wisdom writings 
on the other hand, is no decisive argument in favour of Alex- 
andria; neither is the hypothesis (once favoured by Wieseler) 
that the writer had in mind the Jewish temple (cp. the 4th of 
the Odes of Solomon, ed. J. R. Harris, 1909, p. 91) at Leonto- 
polis; neither again is the Alexandrian tone of the argument, 
which would be perfectly intelligible in many quarters owing 
to the widespread diffusion of Hellenistic Judaism. When 
Jewish Christians of a Hellenistic type are supposed to be the 
recipients of the epistle, Alexandria is a natural place to think of. 
Otherwise it has little more in its favour than any other, and the 
erroneous Pauline tradition which first sprang up there tells 
against the view that the local church was the original com- 
munity addressed. Besides, the Alexandrian tradition was that 
Hebrews was addressed to Palestinian Christians. 

The Roman destination has perhaps most in its favour, ¢g. 
the reference in 134, the use of ἡγούμενοι as in Clem. Rom. and 
Hermas (cp. Harnack’s Comstitution and Law of the Church, 
1910, pp. 63f., 69 f.) for the leaders, and the fact that Clement 
of Rome is the first to use the epistle.* The modern form of 


*This early knowledge of the epistle at Rome might be otherwise 
explained, though not so naturally e.g. if written from Rome, it may 


HEBREWS 447 


this hypothesis finds that Hebrews was sent not to the whole 
church, but to some house-church or small circle of it. For this 
we cannot quote Ro τό", since the latter refers to Ephesus. But 
the language of the episile suggests (so, e.g., Harnack, Zahn, 
von Dobschiitz, Bacon, G. Milligan, 2x/.° iv. 437-448; Peake, 
fHlollmann, M. Jones, Feine, Seeberg, Dickie in £x.® vy. 
371f.) that, instead of being addressed to any large church as 
a whole (in which case it is unlikely that the author would have 
refrained from handling differences of opinion), it was designed 
for a small community or gathering (10% 13%4) which had a 
history and character of its own within the general church of 
the city or district. If the readers were Jewish Christians, they 
might have been drawn from the συναγωγὴ “EBpaiwy in Rome 
(cp. Nestle, ZZ. x. 422). If they were Gentile Christians, the 
composition of the Roman church is equally favourable to 
the existence of such a circle. In any case, the readers, as 
Zahn rightly contends, were too homogeneous in feeling and 
position to represent the entire body of the Roman church, and 
are probably to be identified with one of the household churches 
in the capital. No groups are mentioned, no parties are singled 
out, yet a fairly definite and uniform circle is presupposed in 
such admonitions as those of 513 109% 137, a circle perhaps of 
experienced Christians from whom greater maturity of convic- 
tion might reasonably have been expected. 


It is pressing language too far when 512 (ὀφείλοντες εἶναι διδάσκαλοι) is 
taken to mean that Hebrews was written primarily fora group of διδάσκαλοι 
or evangelists (Heinrici, 7ZZ., 1895, 289), as though the error of these 
Christians was the opposite of that against which the author of James warns 
his audience (Ja 33). 

Hebrews therefore represents neither Paulinism nor the 
primitive Jewish Christian theology, but a special development 
of both, especially of the former, along the speculative lines of 
Alexandrianism, which may have been addressed to some group 
in Rome or in Italy. 

The phrase οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας (13%, cp. Deissmann, 7R. v. 164) might 
grammatically mean ‘those resident in Italy,’ but it is rather more natural 
to take it as denoting some Italian Christians abroad who happened to 


be with the writer (cp. Ignat. Magn. 15), and who sent greetings to their 
compatriots. This is the sole clue to the origin of Hebrews, for the allusion 


have been copied before it was sent off (cp. Gardiner, Axp.° xiii. 60f.), 
unless the phrase in 13”4 denotes Italians out of their country. 


448 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


to the imprisonment of Timotheus (13%) finds no echo in Acts or in early 
tradition, and he is as likely to have been imprisoned outside Italy as at Rome. 
The movements of Timotheus, after his release, are apparently uncertain ; 
the author hopes, however, that his colleague will soon rejoin him, and that 
they may together revisit the church, as soon as his own way is smoothed 
(13!%).* Meantime, he forwards the epistle (1333), for which he bespeaks a 
favourable reception. The writer is evidently not quite sure how his words 
will be taken. 


The wider question of the epistle’s object has no light thrown 
on it by Πρὸς Ἑβραίους the title, which, like the ad Familiares of 
Cicero’s correspondence, is one of the erroneous titles of 
antiquity, and (see p. 432), was probably added to the epistle 
during the earlier part of the second century as a reflection of the 
impression made by its apparently Hebrew preoccupation upon 
the mind of a generation which had lost all direct knowledge of 
the writing’s origin and standpoint. 


No explanation of πρὸς ‘Efpatous as a corruption either, ¢.g., of πρὸς 
Βερναίους = Βεροιαίους (Klostermann, see above) or of πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους (cp. 
ZNW. i. 21) has any plausibility. A more attractive hypothesis, which 
would explain the title as chosen by the author, is to take Ἑβραῖοι in the 
symbolic or allegorical sense of the term. On this view, the readers were 
conceived as Hedvews in the light and lineage of Abraham (25 1138) the 
Hebrew crosser from the sensible to the spiritual world. To Philo, ὁ Ἑβραῖος 
is the type of such a believer who migrates (11° 1318) as a pilgrim ; and, it is 
asked, in view of the Philonic etymological parallels elsewhere in the epistle, 
to say nothing of the typological idiosyncrasies which pervade it, ‘*Cana 
more appropriate appellation be found for the non-legalistic, yet not anti- 
nomian, believers addressed in the epistle to the Hebrews than is derived 
from Abram ¢he Hebrew, in whom, on the one hand, all believers saw their 
father, and whose act [of bringing tithes to Melchizedek, 7*] acknowledges, 
on the other hand, the superiority of the non-legalistic cult of the θεὸς ὕψιστος 
to the Levitical cult ?” (Schiele, 303 f., V. Monod). This smacks of subtlety, 
however ; besides, we should have expected allusions to the crossing of Abra- 
ham (in 11%), whereas the very term ‘Efpaios is absent from the epistle. 


Even the internal evidence of the epistle yields very little 
material for a decision upon the precise aim which the writer 
had in mind. As the problem before him was not a relapse 
into Judaism,—for he never discusses any question of combin- 
ing the Christian faith with legalism,—there is no obvious need 
to suppose that the readers were mainly of Jewish birth. The 
sole suggestion yielded by the course of the epistle is that they 


*In spite of Burggaller’s caveat (126-127), the words of 13 seem to 
imply the temporary absence of the writer from the readers; they do not 
naturally suit a preacher speaking to his audience, 


HEBREWS 449 


may have been exposed to the seductions of a subtle Judaism, 
and this liability implies no more than the ordinary interest of 
Gentile Christians in the OT scriptures and institutions. There 
is no hint of circumcision being a danger, or of ritual formality ; 
and if Christians of Jewish birth formed any serious element in 
this church, their training must have been that of Hellenistic 
Judaism such as Stephen was trained under—liberal, biblical, 
and to a certain extent syncretistic. Evidence for such Jewish 
communities * is furnished in the East, where independent 
Hebrew circles sprang up, without any legalistic ties to the 
synagogues, and yet with a combination of Jewish piety (in- 
cluding reverence for the sacred books) and Hellenic concep- 
tions such as the cult of the Most High God (cp. He 7}, and 
for Rome, C7G. 5929). ‘‘This precedent,” as Schiirer rightly 
observes, “is instructive for the earliest history of Christianity. 
Certain symptoms indicate that the formation of Gentile- 
Christian communities, free from legalism, was not exclusively 
the work of Paul. In several places, eg. in Rome, it appears 
to have been prepared for by the fact that the preaching of 
Christ won acceptance especially in circles of the σεβόμενοι 
τὸν Oedv” (op. cit. p. 225; cp. HEP. 37f.). As the title ὕψιστος 
only occurs once, however, in an incidental quotation, in 
Hebrews (71, cp. Clemen’s Ure. pp. 80f., and MacNeill, p. 114), 
no stress can be laid on it as evidence for the mzlieu of the 
epistle. It would be unsafe to identify such a group or association 
of converted Jews with the Roman ἐπισυναγωγή to which this 
epistle was probably addressed, or to argue from the prevalence of 
such a form of religious association in Pontus (Ac 18!-*) in favour 
of Prisca’s claim to the authorship. All that can be said with 
safety is that the situation of this church or company of 
Christians possibly included certain temptations of a specifically 
Jewish cast, which might appeal especially to Christians who, 
from some religious idiosyncrasy, were nourishing their faith upon 
the Levitical portions of the OT scriptures. It is conceivable 
that these seductive tendencies were the issue of a speculative 
Judaism which, allied to certain ritualistic and _ sacerdotal 
proclivities (similar, perhaps, to those controverted in Romans 
or Colossians), was besetting Gentile Christians, or even 

* Schiirer (SBBA., 1897, 200-225) shows how the σεβόμενοι θεὸν ὕψιστον 


did not form one large association in Tanais, but rather a number of small 
groups, each containing about forty members, See also Achelis, Ure. 33 f. 


29 


450 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


Christians who had been thrown into contact with Judaism, 
during the second decade after the fall of Jerusalem (so Haring. 
SK., 1891, pp. 589-598, and Bacon, 727. 149, after Schiirer, 
thid., 1876, pp. 776 f.), when rabbinical tendencies revived, and 
provincial Christianity was often exposed to such apostasy 
(Wellhausen, S&izzen u. Vorarbeiten, 111. pp. 196 f.; Harnack, TU. 
i. 3, pp. 73 f.; HD. i. 293, 298). For although Judaism may 
be reckoned—despite Barkochba’s revolt—as a lost cause, 
subsequent to A.D. 70 it was very far from being a forsaken 
belief. During the closing quarter of the first century, Jewish 
propaganda continued to flourish throughout the Empire, no- 
where more than at Rome. The morality and monotheism 
preached by Hellenistic Jews especially must have proved not 
simply a rival to Christianity in the eyes of many pagans, but 
a source of dangerous fascination for weaker and less intelligent 
members of the Christian church, who lay open, through birth 
or associations, to such Jewish influences. Several hints in this 
epistle may be held to indicate the presence of the peril (e.g. 6° 
13°16 etc. ; cp. Hort’s JC. pp. 156 ἢ, and Haupt in SX., 1895, 
pp. 388-390). Uiuere more judaico was evidently a specious 
watchword. It represented, as we find in Cerinthus afterwards, 
a distinct and subtle danger, prompting Gentile Christians— 
especially proselytes—to revert to their old life, and inclining 
others to favour a heterogeneous syncretism of Jewish and 
Christian beliefs. The time came, ere long, when Ignatius 
needed to cry out, ‘ Better listen to Christianity from a circum- 
cised man than to Judaism from one uncircumcised’ (ad Philad. 
6), ‘it is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ καὶ iovdaifew, for 
Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Chris- 
tianity’ (AZagn. το, cp. 8-9). In the qualified sense just defined, 
a Jewish danger may be admitted as a subordinate factor in the 
situation of the Christians to whom Hebrews was addressed. 
But the pro-Jewish propaganda was certainly not one of circum- 
cision or of legalism, as in Paul’s day, and the presence of 
other elements, drawn from the cults and worship of paganism, 
is almost as evident. The time that had elapsed since the 
primitive flush and freshness of the gospel, together with the 
severity of the situation, had tended to produce a dissatisfaction 
in these Christians, which tempted them to abandon the worship 
and membership of the church (10%), as if it were a philosophic 
school or a cult whose capacities they had exhausted (cp. HD. 


HEBREWS 451 


i. 151). Whether this temptation was accentuated by any 
Jewish propaganda (so especially Ménégoz) or by some of the 
pagan religious cults, or by a fusion of both, it it almost im- 
possible, in the lack of corroborative evidence, to determine. 

It does not follow even that such realistic details of the Levitical cultus 
could not have appealed to certain Gentile Christians. This may be held in 
view not only of the fact that the allegorical interpretations had carried them 
far and wide, but also of the further fact that the Greek and Roman world 
had pieces of ritual not wholly dissimilar to the precise regulations of the 
Mosaic cultus. A recently discovered inscription (pre-Christian) from Eresos 
in Lesbos gives rules, ¢.g. for the purification of women, which are analogous 
to those of Leviticus (cp. W. R. Paton, Class. Rev., 1902, 290-292; also 
P. Kretschmer in Jahreshefte des dsterreich. archaol, Instit. v. pp. 143 f.). 

ὃ 8. Daze.—The period of composition is naturally bound up 
with the particular view taken of the authorship, and especially 
of the aim and destination. Thus the epistle is placed close 
to the final crisis of Judaism in Palestine, ze, in a.D. 68-70, 
by Grimm, Kiibel (A.D. 67-68), Rendall, Riggenbach, Barth, 
and others. Some, sharing the same general view of its religious 
purpose, put it earlier, between 64 and 67 or 65 and 70; e.g. 
Bleek, Beyschlag (VZ" Theol. ii. 286-288), Renan, Scholten, 
Godet, Clemen (Chron. 277-279), Ewald, Farrar, Westcott, 
Roberts (Greek the Language of Christ and His Apostles, ch. 
vili.), 5. Davidson, Bovon (VZ77%. ii. 387-389), Ménégoz, G. 
G. Findlay (¢. a.p. 67), G. B. Stevens (V7TZ%. 485 f.), Huyghe, 
Trenkle (Zin/. 88 f.), G. Milligan, G. Meyer (a.D. 67-69), Farrar 
(a.D. 67-68), Edmundson (Ure. 153 f.: 66 a.D.), Kay and Heigl 
(a.D. 65), Ayles (6. a.D. 64). It is placed slightly earlier by 
Hilgenfeld (before a.p. 66), Mill, Bullock, Salmon, and Holtzheuer 
(A.D. 63), Schafer (Ziv. 149-157), and Belser (A.D. 63-64), 
Bartlet * (a.D. 62), W. M. Lewis,t Nairne, and Ramsay (a.p. 
58-60). A second-century date, such as A.D. 95-115 (Pfleiderer) 
or A.D, 116-118 (Volkmar, Religion Jesu, 388 f.; Keim, Brickner, 
Hausrath), is ruled out of court by the use of Hebrews in Clem. 
Romanus, and the contrary assertion (Hitzig, Zur Kritik der 
Paulinischen Briefe, 34-36) that Hebrews depends on the 
Antiquities of Josephus is of no importance. It is needless to 
be too precise, in condescending, ¢.g., upon ¢. A.D. 95 (Késtlin), 
but ¢. a.D. 80, or more generally the Domitianic period, would 

* From Brundusium by Paul (Hofmann). 


+ Joint-production of Paul and Luke from the Cesarean imprisonment 
(Ac 23°), 


452 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


represent the converging opinions of many critics, including 
Schenkel (das Christusbild der Apostel, 1879, 130f.), Mangold 
(Romerbrief, 1884, pp. 258 f.), Holtzmann (BZ. ii. 615 f., ZWT.,, 
1884, pp. 1-10), Weizsacker (AA. ii. 155-160), von Soden, Cone, 
Jillicher, McGiffert (4A. 463f.), Zahn (RE. vii. 492-506), 
Rovers (JVT. 8ο ἢ), Bousset (Z'2., 1897, 9-10), J. Réville (Zes 
origines de lépiscopat, i. 363-366), Pfleiderer (U7c. iii. 280f.), 
Kruger’s Altchristl. Litteratur? (1898), p. 11; Bacon, Haring 
(SK., 1891, 589-598), Ropes (AA. 269 f.), Goodspeed, Hollmann, 
Wrede’s Entstehung der Schriften des NT (1907), 82 f.; Willis, 
MacNeill, Windisch, and Perdelwitz. Vdlter’s theory (77, 1908, 
537£, nucleus written ὦ A.D. 75 to Rome, but reissued twenty 
years later with additions in 129-3 5b-13 211-146 33-4 414_ 7918 yo19-28. 288 
1% 18-16, 18, 26a, 897. 7 218-28 y 38-16. 20) had been partially anticipated 
by J. S. F. Chamberlain (Zhe Epistle to the Hebrews, 1904), 
who took Hebrews as addressed to the Jews by a prominent 
Christian (Paul?), and afterwards edited with additions by 
another Christian for Gentile Christians. 


(2) The allusions in the present tense (78: 39 83-5 98-9 18 131°) to the cultus 
by no means imply a date prior to A.D. 70. Nothing is more common 
(Schiirer, 277. τ. ii. pp. 268 f.), in writings subsequent to that date, Jewish 
(Josephus, Avézg. iii. 6. 7-12, Apion. i. 7, ii. 8. 23) and Christian (Clem. 
Rom. 40-41 ; Justin, Dza/. 107, Diognetus 3, and Barnabas), than such refer- 
ences. They denote a literary method, not any contemporary existence of 
the practices or places mentioned. Besides, the allusions ‘‘to the Mosaic 
ritual are purely ideal and theoretical, and based on the Law in the 
Pentateuch. . . . The mode of reasoning adopted would have been as ~ 
valid after the destruction of the Temple as during its existence” (A. B. 
Davidson, Hebrews, p. 15). Hence (4) it is no argument for a pre-7o date 
to hold that the writer implies the existence of the temple-cultus, and that 
he would have been sure to notice its abolition if he had written after the 
overthrow of the Jewish capital. The Judaism with which he is dealing is 
that of the tabernacle, not of the temple. Neither he nor his readers are 
concerned with the temple-ritual at all; its existence mattered as little to 
his idealist method of argument as its destruction. Thus the expression in 
818 (the old covenant ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ) means simply that the old régime, 
superseded by Jesus, was decaying even in Jeremiah’s age. If it had lain 
in his way to cite the Jewish catastrophe of A.D. 70 as a proof of the 
evanescence of the old order, a more apposite allusion (Jiilicher) would have 
been to the murder of Jesus, the heavenly high priest, at the instance of the 
earthly high priests. But all such arguments lay outside the circle of his 
interests. He finds his cogent demonstration of the superiority of the gospel 
not in contemporary history, but in the sacred pages of the LXX. (c) For 
the same reason the allusion to the forty years of Israel’s wandering (3172) is 
not a covert reference to the time which had elapsed since the resurrection, 


HEBREWS 453 


while (d) the reference in 137 is too general to refer specifically to the 
death of James (in Jerusalem) or of Peter and Paul (in Rome). There is 
no hint in 3% 27 (forty years) of the period of time since the crucifixion, 
as if the day of Israel’s grace were almost ended, or had ended. The writer 
is not calculating the present from the past. He does not find any typical 
significance in the number,—which in this case would be merely a round 
term (cp. Mk 138, Ac 15) for a generation. It is only on one forn of the 
Palestinian (Jerusalem) hypothesis that any allusion can be found in 137 to 
the death of James ; and even on the post-7o A.D. hypothesis, it is unneces- 
ary to find a reference here to the deaths of Peter and Paul. 


The surest criteria for fixing the period of composition lie in 
the literary relationships of the epistle. The ‘ferminus ad quem 
is fixed by Clemens Romanus (see above, pp. 430f.), the 
terminus a guo by the familiarity of the writer with some of 
Paul’s epistles, and probably with 1 Peter (see above, pp. 439 f.). 
Like the latter, Hebrews, with its indifference to the burning 
questions of the Law and circumcision, reflects a period 
when Paul’s efforts had settled the problem of Jew and Gentile 
in the early church. 


Of the Pauline epistles (cp. Briickner’s Chron. 236-241; Holtzmann, 
ZWT., 1867, pp. 18f.), Romans is pretty clearly used, as is only natural 
in an epistle written by a διδάσκαλος who had apparently connections with 
some Christians in Rome. The similarity of the Deuteronomy-citation in 
Ro 12%=He 10% might be due to the independent use of a common 
tradition or florclegium; but Ro 417-2! seems to underlie He 11-2 19. and 
further instances of the same dependence may be traced, e.g., in Ro 177= 
He 10%, 14° =He 13°, Ro 14%=He 1215. Ro 15%=He 13”, r Co 2®=He 
Beg tO ss— tHe) 5, 1 Co, 124—He. 2* 1 (Co 15%—He 2) 1 (Ὁ 1050 
ieee 2 Ὁ 11 15ΞΞ- He ΠΡ 2 (Ὁ 5. ΞῊΠ oo, Σ Corrs! ΞΞΗΡ ΤΟΣ» 
and Galatians (3!1=He 6°, 3%=He 2?, 4.“ -Ξ ΗΘ 125 ..}17.0) and Phil 2% 
=He 14, Phil 4 8=He 13%, Phil 47-%=He 13%. ‘‘ Der Gedankengang 
bewegt sich in voller Selbstindigkeit, die Anlehnung an Paulus ist daher 
immer frei und ungefahr, meistens vermutlich rein gedichtnismiassig’ (Wrede, 
p- 54). Of the seven words peculiar, in the NT, to Heb. and the Pastorals, 
ἀπόλαυσις is used in entirely different senses (He 11%=1 Ti 61”), as is 
ὀρέγεσθαι (τι ὅτει Ti 31 610), while the remainder (ἀφιλάργυρος, βέβηλος, 
ἐκτρέπεσθαι, ὀνειδίσμος, and πρόδηλος) are neither numerous nor significant 
enough to show any particular affinity between the two, especially in the 
absence of any common characteristics of style and thought. 


The interpretation of 10°2-94 as an allusion to the theatrical 
displays (θεατριζόμενοι) which accompanied Nero’s outburst 
against the Roman Christians is not necessary, in view of the 
use of θέατρον in 1 Co 4°; the language is too general and even 
mild; and the reference in 10% is not to legal confiscation of 
property (cp. on this Klette’s Christenkatastrophe unter Nero, 


454 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


1907, 43f.), but to the results of mob-rioting. The passage 
cannot therefore be taken as a proof of any particular destination 
(Roman, or even Palestinian) for Hebrews, and the same holds 
of the other allusions to suffering and persecution throughout the 
epistle. They may be fitted into a theory which rests on other 
grounds, but by themselves they’ furnish no decisive evidence. 
It did not lie in the writer’s way to be detailed, any more 
than it occurred to the author of the Religio Medici to 
mention the Star Chamber, the fortunes of the Huguenots, or 
even the Civil War in England. So far as he has any explicit 
aim in these allusions, it is rather to prepare his readers for 
bearing the brunt of some imminent danger, which hitherto 
(οὔπω μέχρις αἵματος, 124) they have been spared. This is the 
point, ¢.g., of the enigmatic and allegorical passage in 131", where 
he summons them, after the example of Jesus (cp. 127), not to 
break with Judaism,—such a realistic use of παρεμβολή would be 
hopelessly out of keeping with the symbolism of the epistle,— 
but to be ready to be outcasts from the world in their pursuit 
of the real religion (cp. 411. The reproach of Christ which 
they are to bear is that cheerfully borne by Moses long ago 
(1175-26), in abjuring the fascinations and advantages of the pagan 
world. 

It is prosaic and untrue to the semi-allegorical cast of the argument, to 
take 13° as an appeal to break finally with Judaism. The contrast is 
between the various pagan cult-feasts, which the readers felt they could 
indulge in not only with immunity but even with profit, and the Christian 
religion which dispensed with any such participation. Our altar, says the 
writer, is one of which the worshippers (λατρεύοντες of Christians, as in 915 
12%) do not partake (in 13! σκηνή is the NT temple, contrasted with that of 
9°). The Christian sacrifices are a cheerful confession of God even in 
suffering, and beneficence towards others; they have nothing whatever to do 
with participation in any sacramental meal. The latter practices are a foreign 
novelty, inconsistent with the spirituality and adequacy of the relation which 
Jesus Christ establishes between God and his people. Such innovations are 
to be eschewed, in favour of the primitive λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (137) or χάρις which 
alone can establish the heart, however much a religion without a sacrificial 
meal may be despised and persecuted by the world. Christians have a 
sacrifice for sins which brings them into full communion with God, but they 
have no sacrificial meal* (cp. Spitta, Ure. i. 325 f.). When θυσιαστήριον is 


* The association of φωτισθέντες (10%), especially in connection with a 
metaphorical allusion to eating, suggests the phraseology of the Greek 
mysteries (cp. EXE. viii. 54 f. ; Wobbermin’s Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, 
pp. 154f.), as in Eph «8 3°, 2 Ti 1 Similarly, the reference in 12'*”, 


HEBREWS 455 


identified with the Lord’s table, it becomes possible to hear (cp. above, p. 389) 
an early protest against the realistic sacramental view of the Lord’s supper 
which sought to base its efficacy on conceptions of communion popular 
among the pagan mysteries. The writer controverts these by means of 
arguments drawn from the Levitical system of Judaism, not because he has 
the latter directly in view, but because his method of working from the OT 
enables him to prove that Jesus, as the perfect sin-offering, superseded all such 
religious devices ; the spurious and superstitious tendencies of pagan com- 
munion to which these readers were exposed were part and parcel of a system 
which the sacrifice of Christ had entirely antiquated, by realising the religious 
instincts latent in pre-Christian and non-Christian sacrifices (cp. P. Gardner, 
Historic View of the NT, 1904, 234f.). There is to be no eating of the σῶμα 
Χριστοῦ. The author of the Fourth gospel’s attitude is less uncompromising 
and unambiguous than that of the author of Hebrews, though, like the 
significant omission of the Lord’s supper in Eph. (see above, p. 389), it marks 
the same current of tendency flowing through the more spiritual and idealistic 
circles of the early church towards the close of the first century. 

§ 9. Zext.—The text has suffered early injuries, though seldom in 
important passages. The difficult and early variant χωρὶς, for χάριτι in 2°, 
which Origen and Jerome already found in some MSS, may have arisen from 
a transcriptional error ; certainly it is much less relevant to the context, 
whether taken with ὑπὲρ παντός (Origen) or γεύσηται (Zimmer, Weiss). But 
χωρὶς is as likely to have been smoothed out into χάριτι, and in this case one 
must either conjecture that the phrase χωρὶς θεοῦ originally lay after (or asa 
marginal gloss to) ἀνυπότακτον in v.®, or assume that some primitive corrup- 
tion underlies the text of v.° (Baljon, Zheol. Studién, 1890, 213~214). 
Such a corruption is probably visible not only in 1o! but also in 42, where 
WH (see their note) favour Noesselt’s conjecture τοῖς ἀκούσμασιν (= ‘ things 
heard’). The parenthesis ὁ λαὸς yap ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται (7!) would fit 
in perhaps better at the close of 712; but that is no reason for supposing (so 
Bakhuyzen) that the present position of the words is due to the transposition 
of a copyist. On the omission of 85 as a gloss by Kuenen, Prins, and 
Bakhuyzen, see Baljon, of. czt. 216f. The conjecture HACIONA for 
TTAEIONA in 114 (so Cobet and Vollgraff; cp. Maynard in Zxf.7 vii. 
163 f.) is not more than plausible, and the emendation (Blass ; cp. C. K6én- 
necke’s Beztrage zur Erklarung des NT, 1896, p. 15) of 115 into καὶ οὐχ 
ἡυρίσκετ' αὐτοῦ θάνατος (Orig., Clem. Rom. 9%) is not even plausible. The 
same may be said of the proposal to omit τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ as a 
later gloss (7he Ep. to the Hebrews, by two Clerks, 1912, p. 40) in 10”, 
and of Field’s hypothesis (Votes on Translation of NT, 233) that καὶ αὐτὴ 
Σάρρα in 111} is an interpolated marginal comment. In 1157 ἐπειράσθησαν 
is either (cp. WH'’s note) a corruption of some less general term like ἐπρή- 
σθησαν or ἐπυράσθησαν or ἐνεπρήσθησαν, or a dittography of the previous 
ἐπρίσθησαν (Naber, Bakhuyzen), or a marginal gloss which originally (ἐπειρά- 
θησαν) explained πεῖραν ἔλαβον (F. Field). 


456 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


LITERATURE.!—(a) Editions—Althamer (Jn efést. Jacobi?, 1533); 
Grynzus (Explicatio epp. Cathol., Basel, 1593); R. Turnbull (London, 
1606); Cornelius ἃ Lapide (1648); Estius (1661); Brochmand (1706) ; 
Damm (1747); Benson and Michaelis (1756); Seemiller (1783); Rosen- 
miiller (Der Brief J. dibersetet und erlaritert, 1787); J. B. Carpzov (Halle, 
1790); Morus, Prelectiones in Jacobi et Petri epistolas (Leipzig, 1794); 
Hensler (Hamburg, 1801); Hottinger (Leipzig, 1815); Pott® (1816); 
Schulthess (Ziirich, 1824); Gebser (Berlin, 1828, with valuable patristic 
materials) ; Schneckenburger’s Amnotatio (1832); Theile’s Commentarius 
(Leipzig, 1833) ; Jachmann (1838); Kern (Tiibingen, 1838) * ; J. A. Cramer’s 
Catena in epp. Catholicas (Oxford, 1840) ; Scharling (1841); Stier (Barmen, 
1845) ; de Wette (1847) ; Cellerier (1850) ; Neander (Eng. tr. 1851); T. W. 
Peile (1852); Wiesinger (1854); Messmer (Brixen, 1863); H. Bouman 
(1865); B. Briickner (1865); J. Adam (Edinburgh, 1867); Lange (1862, 
Eng. tr. 1867); Ewald (1870) ; Huther® (1870, Eng. tr. 1882); A. Bisping 
(Miinster, 1871); Wordsworth (1875); E. G. Punchard (Ellicott’s Comm. 
n. d.); Bassett (London, 1376); Plumptre (Camd. Bzble, 1878); Erdmann 
(1881) ; Scott (Speaker's Comm. 1881); Gloag (Schaff's Comm. 1883); E. 
C. 8. Gibson? (Pulpzt Comm. 1887); Johnstone? (1888) ; Plummer (Zxfos. 
Bible, 1891); Trenkle, Der Brief des hetligen Jakobus (1894); K. Burger? 
(Strack-Zéckler’s Komm. 1895); Carr (CG7. 1896); Beyschlag (— Meyer 8, 
1898) ἢ; von Soden? (HC. 1899); Baljon (1904); H. Wilbers (Amsterdam, 
1906) ; G. Hollmann? (SN7Z. 1907); Hort (1909) ; Belser (1909)*; R. J. 
Knowling? (WC. 1910) ; Oesterley (EG7. 1910) ; Windisch (HBN7. 1911) ; 
Mayor* (London, 1913)*; J. H. Ropes (CC. 1916) *. 

(6) Studies.—(i.) general: — Heisen’s Move Hypotheses interpretande 
epistole Jacobi (1739); Storr’s Dzssertatio exegetica (Tiibingen, 1784); J. Ὁ. 
Schulze (see above, p. 319); Gabler, De Jacobo, epistole eidem ascripte 
auctore (Altdorf, 1787); Bricka, Réflexions relat. ἃ [introduction ἃ [épitre 
des. Jacques (1838) ; F. L. Schaumann’s Origo afostolica et authent. epistole 
Jacobi (Helsingfors, 1840) ; Galup’s Essai une Introd. critique . . . (1842); 
J. Monod’s Jntroduction . . . (Montauban, 1846); Loeffler’s Etudes 
historiques et dogmatiques sur Jac. (1850) ; Ritschl’s Entstehung d. Altkath- 
hirche® (1857), 108f.; A. Boon, De epzst. Jacobi cum libro Strac. conven. 
(1866) ; Wohlwerth (Sur 7? authent. etc., 1868); A. H. Blom, De Brief van 
Jakobus (1869)* ; Sabatier (ZSR. vii. 125-132); W. Schmidt, LeArgehalt 
des Jakobus- Briefes* (1869) ; Leo Vézes, Dissertatio de epist. Jacobi (1871); 
Beyschlag (SX., 1874, pp. 150f.); Holtzmann (BZ. iii. 179-189, and in 
ZWT., 1882, pp. 292 f.); Gloag’s Jntrod. Cath. Epp. pp. 23-108; P. 
Schegg, Jakobus der Briider des Herrn und sein Brief (1883); von Soden 
(JPT., 1884, pp. 137-192) ἢ; Meyrick (Smith’s 22.323 1520-1522); Zimmer 
(ZWT., 1893, 481-503); Pfleiderer (Urc. iv. pp. 293-311); P. Feine, 
Der Jakobusbrief nach Lehranschauungen und Entstehungsverhaltnisse 


1See Kawerau’s study of ‘die Schicksale des Jakobusbriefes im 16 
Jahrhundert’ (Ze¢tschrift fur kirchl. Wiss. und Leben, 1889, pp. 359-370), 
and Leipoldt’s paragraphs on Luther’s criticism (GX. ii. pp. 67-77). 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 457 


(1893) *; Kihl (SH., 1894, 795-817); van Manen (77., 1894, 478-496) ; 
Holtzmann, W77%. ii. 328-350; Spitta (Urc. ii. 1. 1-239)*; Bovon, 
NTTA,. ii. 447-462 ; Vowinckel (8.7. vi. 1898); Moffatt (HVZ7. 576f., 
704f.); Cone (Bz. 2321-2326) ; Sieffert (PREZ. viii. 581f.); J. B. Mayor 
(DB. ii. 543-548, and Further Studies in Ep. of James, 1913); J. Parry, A 
Discussion of the General Epistle of James (London, 1903); V. Ermoni 
(Vigouroux’ DB. iii. 1087-1098) ; Grafe, Stellung τε. Bedeutung d. Jakobus- 
briefes, etc. (Tiibingen, 1904) ἢ; B. Weiss, Der Jakobusbrief und die neueste 
Krittk (1904); H. J. Cladder in Zeztschrift fiir Kathol. Theologie (1904, 
37-58, 1904, 295-330); M. Meinertz, Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser 
in Schrift und Ueberlieferung (in Bardenhewer’s ‘ Biblische Studien,’ x. 
1905)*; Zahn’s S&zzzen® (1908), 93f.; Hoennicke ( 70. pp. 90f., 191 f.); 
C. W. Emmet (Hastings’ DB., 1909, 424-426) ; Wendland (HBNT. i. 2. 
370f.) ; Gaugusch (Lehrgestalt d. Jakobus-Epistel, 1914); W. Montgomery 
(DAC. i. 629f.). (ii.) on 2-6 in relation to Paul: Hulsemann’s Harmonia 
. - » (1643); C. 5. Ruger’s Conciliatio . . . (1785); Knapp (Screptura 
varit argumenti#, 1823, i. pp. 411 f.); Frommann (SX., 1833, pp. 84f., 
harmonising) ; Isenberg, Dze Rechifertigung durch d. Glauben oder Paulus 
und Jakobus (1868); Riggenbach (SX., 1868, 238f.); Martens, Geloof 
en weerken naar den brief van Jakobus (1871); H. W. Weiffenbach, 
Exegetische-theologische Studie tiber Jakobus, ii. 14-26 (Giessen, 1871)* 5 
Fritzsch, Der Glaube, die Werke, und die Rechtfertigung nach der Lehre 
ἡ. Jakobus (1875); Schanz (7Q., 1880, pp. 3f., 247f.); Kiibel, Ueber 
das Verhdltniss von Glaube und Werken bei Jakobus (1880); Klopper 
(ZWT., 1885, pp. 280f.); Usteri (SX., 1889, 211-256); C. Schwartz 
(SK., 1891, 704-737); B. Bartmann, S. Paulus und S. Jakobus uber die 
Rechtfertigung (in Bardenhewer’s ‘Biblische Studien,’ 1897, ii. 1); J. 
Bohmer (VXZ., 1898, 251-256) ; Ménégoz in Etudes d. Théol. et d’ Histoire 
(Paris, 1901, pp. 121-150); E. Kiihl, Dze Stellung des Jakobusbriefes zum 
alttest. Gesetz, etc. (1905); F. W. Mozley (Zxp.7 x. 481-503); A. Kohler, 
Glaube u. Werke in Jak. (1914). 


δ 1. Contents and outline—The brief address (11) closes with 
the (p. 48) Greek salutation χαίρειν, and this is caught up in the 
first of the following five paragraphs with which the homily opens 
(πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε κτλ.). The thread on which these are 
loosely strung together is the thought of πειρασμός. The first 
paragraph is a statement of π. as part of the divine discipline 
for perfecting (τέλειοι) the Christian character (124). This 
suggests (ev μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι. Ei δέ τις ὑμῶν λείπεται σοφίας), 
though not very relevantly,* a word on the need of sincere faith + 


* The writer has in mind Sap 9°: though a man be perfect (τέλειος) among 
the sons of men, yet of the wisdom (σοφία) that zs from thee be absent, he shall 
be reckoned of no account. The whole section, with its emphasis on God as the 
liberal giver of wisdom to sincere suppliants, breathes the spirit of the sapiential 
Hebrew literature and of Philo (cp. H. A. A. Kennedy, 2.8 ii. 39-52). 

ft Luther’s marginal note on 15 (as on 518) is: ‘‘der einzige und beste Ort 


458 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


in praying for practical guidance in life (15%). Then, as the 
insincere person or ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, a familiar type and figure in the 
older Jewish literature, was unstable (ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς 
ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ, 13, cp. 38: 16, Sir 125, En g1*) owing to his half-hearted 
attachment to the divine σοφία, the writer adds a paragraph (19! 
καυχάσθω δέ κτλ.) on the fate of the rich man who fades ἐν ταῖς 
πορείαις" avrot—the timely loss of wealth thus being in reality a 
blessing, a πειρασμός for which he should be thankful.t A word 
on the reward for enduring trial (1123) follows. Logically and 
strictly it resumes the thought of 14, but the writer is reproducing 
the sequence of thought in Sir (34) 31%! dlessed ts the rich man 
who goeth (ἐπορεύθη) not after gold. Whois he? Verily we will 
call him blessed (paxaptotpev). . . . Who hath been tried thereby 
(ἐδοκιμάσθη) and found perfect (ἐτελειώθηγνΥῥ Then let him glory 
(ἔστω εἰς καύχησιν). Here, however (μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑπομένει 
πειρασμόν, ὅτι δόκιμος γενόμενος κτλ.), the conception of the sphere 
of πειρασμός is broadened to cover poor and rich alike, just as its 
reward is made eschatological (cp. Sap 5" the just live for ever 
. . « they shall receive—)ijovrari—the diadem of beauty from the 
hand of the Lord, Zec 614 LXX). The writer then meets a current_ 
objection (1; cp. Judas 16) by proving that the origin of 
πειρασμός lies not in God, whose gifts are only good,{ but in the 
lusts of human nature; and the ideas of Gn 3, suggested by the 
latter thought (1!4f), lead him to contrast the birth of sin from 
lust with the new creative word of the gospel (118), which is 
God’s supreme gift to mankind. The condition of receiving this 
gift is threefold. First, meekness (111), the spirit that refuses to 
resent God’s dealings or to flame up (κακία = malice) in irritation 
against other people. Secondly, while the perfect (τέλειος) 
Christian must be guick to hear (119), it is the hearing which is 


in der ganzen Epistel.” For Luther’s opinions, see Walther in SX. (1893) 
pp. 595f., and Meinertz, of. cit. pp. 216f. The liberal criticism of Cardinal 
Cajetan and some others in that age is outlined by Simon, /7stocre Critique 
du Texte du NT, pp. 189 f. 

* Corssen (GGA., 1893, pp. 594 f.) prefers to read, with minuscule 30, εὐπο- 
ρείαις (so Mangey and Bakhuyzen; cp. Baljon, Theol. Studién, 1891, pp. 377 f.). 

¢ The similar Jewish teaching of Akiba is discussed by Bacher in his 
Agada d. Tannaiten®, i. (1903) pp. 320f. Job's sufferings (cp. 5) were one 
of Akiba’s favourite illustrations of πειρασμός (see above, p. 33). 

Ὁ In 17 it is tempting to place # after τροπῆς instead of before it, especially 
in view of Sap 717-8 (τροπῶν ἀλλαγὰς καὶ μεταβολὰς καιρῶν) ; so Koennecke, 
Emendationen au Stellen des NT (1908, BFT. xii.), pp. 12f. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 459 


followed by practical obedience (1225), Thirdly, not talk* but 
charity and chastity form the true worship of God (119 slow to 
speak, 18-27) the Father (cp. Ps 68°). 

The implicit antithesis between pagan and Christian θρησκεία 
then leads the writer to denounce an abuse within (συναγωγὴν) 
contemporary Christian worship, viz. respect of persons, the 
worship of social distinctions, the undue deference paid to 
wealthy people, and the consequent depreciation of the poor 
(21-5), Before our Lord of glory (or, the Lord, our Glory), social 
and human glories are of no account. Besides, the poor are the 
chosen of God (25), and the overbearing un-Christian conduct t 
of the rich entitles them to no such respect (27); to love rich 
people as Christian neighbours is one thing, to be servile towards 
them is quite another (28°). Nor can such neighbourly love 
make up for a failure to keep the command against respect of 
persons (Lv το δ: 18), for the law is a unity (21011), Furthermore, 
the writer adds, gathering up the thoughts of 119-26 as well as of 
21-1], this law which regulates words and deeds alike is a /aw of 
Jreedom, 1.6. (cp. 1%) one which answers completely to the 
spontaneous instincts of our true nature (a Philonic touch, cp. 
quod omn. probus liber,7). And, finally, according to Jewish ethic 
(cp. Sir 2812, En 9812, Test. Zeb 81-3), mercilessness is the un- 
pardonable sin, whereas the merciful soul need have no fear of 
the final judgment (218). 

Having thus put the antithesis between the true Christian 
faith (21) and the favouritism which breeds injustice, the writer 
develops§ the idea of hardheartedness (21%) in a pungent 


* With 11% and 136 compare the famous saying of R. Simeon (Pirke Aboth 
i. 18 ; Derenbourg’s LZ’ Hestotre et la g¢ogr. de la Palestine, i. pp. 271 f.), 119 
(slow to anger)= Pirke Aboth ii. 10 (R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus). With 175-27 cp, 
the eighth reason given by R. Eleazar Ὁ. Jehuda (Saddath, 326 f.) for trouble 
in life, viz., filthy speech, which causes widows and orphans to wail (cp. Is 
916) ; also Medarim, 40a, for the supreme duty of visiting the sick. 

ft Reversing the sequence of Ps (81) 82%, where God’s presence ἐν 
συναγωγῇ θεῶν is made a reason for refusing to respect sinners and for being 
just to orphans and poor folk, just as in Sir (32) 351225 men are warned 
against offering sacrifice to God at the expense of practical charity and justice, 
since οὐκ ἔστιν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ δόξα προσώπου... οὐ λήμψεται πρόσωπον ἐπὶ 
πτωχοῦ. . . οὐ μὴ ὑπερίδῃ ἱκετίαν ὀρφανοῦ, καὶ χήραν ἐὰν ἐκχέῃ λαλιάν. 

Φ With 25 (ἕλκουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς κριτήρια) compare Deissmann’s restoration 
ot the second of the (second series) Oxyrhynchite Logia, οἱ ἕλκοντες ἡμᾶς [els 
τὰ κριτήρια] κτὰ (LA. 437f.). 

§ Unless (see below, p. 463) 411" originally lay here, 


460 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


section (214-26), criticising all conceptions of faith which regard it 
as valid apart from its exercise in deeds. Thereupon, passing 
from lack of deeds to excess of words, he returns to his favourite 
warning against the abuses of speech (315), not as a substitute for 
true faith (214), but as a danger to it. Since Christian teachers * 
by their profession were specially liable to this sin, they are first 
of all mentioned (3!), but the counsel at once broadens out (3% 
ἅπαντες, Cp. 119 πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, 126 εἴ τις κτλ.) into a general 
philippic against the mischievous power (3°) and inconsistency 
(3°) ¢ of evil words. The connection between this and the fol- 
lowing definition of the criteria of true σοφία (3!%17) becomes 
visible in the light of the author’s intimate acquaintance with the 
Wisdom-literature, where (e.g. in Sir 24°) the wisdom of the 
teacher is compared to a stream. So here the allusion to fresh 
fountains (311-12) helps to introduce a contrast between the false 
σοφία, whose notes are bitterness and factiousness (3'*-!6), and 
the true celestial σοφία (317) with its good fruits (contrast 4125). 
Carrying on the metaphor as well as the thought of peace (317), 
the writer then contrasts the future reward of the peaceable (318) 
with the wrangling and dissatisfaction evident on all sides 
among those who practised the false σοφία as their rule of life 
(413). The outer dispeace springs from an inward trouble, 
above all from worldly compromise (4**); hence the author 
adds a straight word on the need of purity and penitence 
(47-20), 

The next brief paragraph against defamation and censorious- 
ness (411-12), if it is not misplaced (see below), must be an echo 
and expansion of 41. Then, rebuking another aspect of over- 
weening presumption, this time against God, he attacks traders 


* Trenzeus (adv. Haer. i. 28, iii. 23. 8) attributes the heresy of Tatian to 
the fact that he allowed his conceit as a teacher to develop a passion for 
novelties. For the high repute, as well as for the perils, of διδάσκαλοι, who 
survived προφῆται in the early church, cp. Harnack, AZAC. i. 354f. 

+ The conception of man as made in God’s likeness (3°) was a fundamentat 
principle of Akiba’s ethic (see, ¢.g., Pirke Aboth iii. 14). R. Simon ben Azzai 
ranked this even higher than neighbourly love (cp. Bachers Agada d. 
Tannaiten®, i. 417f.). For the connection of 3°® with Herakleitus, see E. 
Pfleiderer (/P7. xiii. 177-218); for Philonic sources, Siegfried’s /Az/o, pp. 
311f. In 3° James has used, for his own purpose, an Orphic phrase ; for ὁ τῆς 
μοίρας τροχὸς καὶ τῆς γενέσεως and ὁ κύκλος τῆς γενέσεως, see Rohde’s Psyche’, 
ii. 123, Stighnayr in BZ. (1913) 49-52, and Lobeck’s 7 γαρνε. 797 f. 

t On the duty of generosity among teachers, see Megz//a, 28a. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 461 


(41917 ἄγε viv κτλ.) for ignoring God in their plans for future 
acquisition, and wealthy landowners (51: ἄγε viv κτλ.) for their 
personal selfishness and for defrauding their employés. The 
closing words of the latter denunciation (55, cp. Sir 3422 as a 
shedder of blood is he who deprives a hireling of his hire),* with 
their picture of the unresisting patience of the poor, strike the 
keynote of the following exhortation to patience (57-!!) in view of 
the near approach of the Lord. Above all, Christians must 
refuse to take an oath (5!*15) even when dragged into court by 
their oppressors (cp. 5° 2°); otherwise, whether they manage to 
escape man’s condemnation or not, they will fall under God’s 
(so Sir 23°). A general counsel, in gnomic form, on prayer in 
relation to sickness, then follows (518.18) 7 and the homily 
abruptly ends with an encouragement to the reclaiming of 
backsliders (519-0). t 

§ 2. Structure.—The homily is neither a loosely knit series of 
quasi-proverbial passages nor the logical exposition of a single 
theme. The opening paragraphs contain the three dominant 
ideas of the writing, viz., πίστις, σοφία, and πειρασμός ; but after 
411 these recede into the background, and even the earlier part 
of the writing contains groups of aphorisms with as little cohesion 
as a handful of pearls. This is largely due to the gnomic style, 
as in the Wisdom-literature, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. 
But the pearls are occasionally strung. Like Wordsworth’s 


" Ὁ δίκαιος in 5° is generic (from Sir 50% 2”), but it is a curious coin- 
cidence that James of Jerusalem had this title from Jews and Christians alike, 
according to Hegesippus (cp. Eus. 47. Z. ii. 23). Justin (Dza/. 16) uses 
almost the same language about the responsibility of the Jews for the murder 
of Jesus. 

} The effect of a pious man’s prayer for rain is a commonplace in con- 
temporary Jewish (cp. ¢.g. Taanith, 25b) and Christian (Tert. ad Scag. 4, Vita 
Polykarpi, 29, etc.) tradition. Against the Romanists, who twisted Ja 515: into 
a warrant for their sacrament of extreme unction, Luther thundered (De Bady/. 
Capt. ecclesie preludium): ‘‘si uspiam deliratum est, hoc loco precipue 
deliratum est. Omitto enim, quod hanc epistolam apostoli Jacobi non esse, nec 
apostolico spiritu dignam multi ualde probabiliter asserant, licet consuetudine 
autoritatem, cuiuscunque sit, obtinuerit. Tamen, si etiam esset apostoli Jacobi, 
dicerem non licet apostolum sua autoritate sacramentum instituere.” For 
the medicinal use of oil by sects in the early church, see Bousset’s Hauft- 
probleme der Gnosis (1907), pp. 297 f., and FFG. iv. 175 f. 

t The teaching about forgiveness is not exactly un-Christian, but it falls 
far short not only of the Pauline gospel, but of the primitive Christian colloca- 
tion of forgiveness with faith in Jesus Christ. 


462 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


poems of 1831, though the various paragraphs of this homily are 
semi-detached, they too 


“‘Have moved in order, to each other bound 
By a continuous and acknowledged tie, 
Though unapparent ”— 


unapparent, that is, to those who do not approach them from 
the Wisdom-literature on which they are so closely modelled in 
form as well as in spirit. Thus the analogous abruptness with 
which Sap 19” and Sir 5129-89 end, militates against the hypothesis 
that the original conclusion of Jas. was lost. On the other hand, 
the analogy of Hermas suggests that Jas. may have been put 
together from fly-leaves of prophetic addresses, and even that 
the detached character of one or two paragraphs is to be 
explained by the hypothesis of interpolations (cp. J. E. Symes, 
Interpreter, 1913, 406 f.); so, e.g., 3118 (the essay of an Alexandrian 
scribe, von Soden), 4110 (Jacoby, WZ Ethik, pp. 170f.), 51% 
(Jacoby and Oesterley), or 411-- τ (von Soden), the latter passages 
being possibly Jewish fragments. The difference in size between 
Hermas and Jas., however, is against the hypothesis that the latter, 
like the former, arose by a process of gradual accretion. It is a 
homily or tract in epistolary form (cp. Deissmann, Bible Studies, 
pp. 52-53), though, like Hebrews, it may have sprung from 
spoken addresses. Thus, ¢.g., Feine regards it as the transcript 
of a homily delivered by James before the church at Jerusalem ; 
while Barth, following a hint of Luther,* refers it to some 
hearer who had taken notes of James’s preaching. But, in 
any case, neither the Jewish nor the Gentile Christians ἐν τῇ 
διασπορᾷ (11) were organised so closely as to render the circula- 
tion of such a manifesto practicable, and there is no trace of 
any concrete relation between the writer and his readers. 


Once or twice the text medicam manum exspectat, e.g. (a) in the obscure 
passage 2!8* (cp. P. Mehlhorn im PJZ., 1900, 192-194, and ἃ. Karo, zbzd. 
pp. 159-160), where Pfleiderer (Ure. iv. 304) and Baljon read σὺ ἔργα ἔχεις, 
κἀγὼ πίστιν ἔχω (after codex Corbeiensis) t—which is unconvincing, since 
218» is the reply of the genuine Christian to 2185 (so, recently, J. H. Ropes, 


*Inhis Z%schreaen (quoted by Kawerau, p. 368): ‘‘Ich halt, dass sie 
irgendein Jude gemacht hab, welcher wol hat héren von Christo lauten aber 
nicht zusammenschlagen.” 

+ On the general problem of the Vulgate text of Jas., cp. Belser’s essay in 
7Q., 1908, 329-339; and, for other emendations of this particular passage, 
E. Y. Hincks in /BZ., 1899, pp. 199-202, with Ropes’ note (pp. 208 f.). 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 463 


Exp." v. 547-556). (ὁ) In the equally difficult (cp. Bruston in R7QR., 
1896, 433-436, and Pott, of. cz#. pp. 329-355) passage, 4°, where E. Paret 
(SK., 1907, 234f.) takes πρὸς (Ξε περὶ) φθόνον with what precedes, ἐπιποθεῖ 
(sc. φθόνος) beginning the quotation and Gn 4’ being the scripture before the 
writer’s mind (referring to Kain, as ini Jn 3)°!*), Kirn (SX., 1904, 127 f. 
and 593-604) and Koennecke (pp. 15f.) read (τὸν) θεόν for φθόνον, while 
Baljon would omit πρὸς φθόνον... διὸ λέγει as a gloss (Hottinger and 
Schulthess omit μείζονα. . . χάριν, the latter conjecturing that μείζονα was 
originally a marginal comment at the end of the verse, as if mw. ἢ τοῖς 
ὑπερηφάνοιΞ5), which is at least better than regarding the words as a parenthesis. 
One or two minor suggestions of transposition have been made; ag. 
that 2° originally * came after 2%, or 417 after 127 (2261), or ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν 
ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (5°) after 51 (Koennecke), as, ¢.g., Pérke Aboth i. τῷ should 
probably follow i. 12. The passage 4}}}7 (see above, p. 459) seems misplaced ; 
a much better connection with what precedes as well as with what follows is 
gained if the paragraph is restored to its original position between 218 and 
213; cp. 21213 with 44-18, and 4! followed by 214, 

The ordinary interpretation of τὸ τέλος κυρίου in 51 as the final outcome 
or purpose of the divine discipline seems adequate to the context. But (after 
Augustine, Beda, Wetstein, and others) it is referred to ‘exitus Domini,’ 
in spite of the adjoining OT examples, by Bois (SX., 1886, 365-366) 
who puts ri... εἴδετε in brackets and takes ὅτι with μακαρίζομεν, as 
well as by Bischoff (ZVW., 1906, 274-279), who proposes to put ἰδού... 
ὑπομείναντας after εἴδετε : while Koennecke (pp. 17-18) again regards κυρίου 
not as a genitzvus auctoris, but asa primitive corruption of αὐτοῦ (z.e. Job). 
The suspicions cast on 512 by Kiihl (Dze Stellung des Jakobusbriefs, pp. 73f.) 
are due to his a grzorz views of the law in Jas. See the note of Schulthess 
(p. 180: ‘‘ Bahrdtius censet, que vv. 414-16 legantur, ab illis uerbis 
ἀλείψαντες αὐτὸν usque ad hic ὅπως ἰαθῆτε manus haud nimium religiosz 
additamentum esse ; atque sine ullo sententiarum detrimento abesse posse 
iudicat Hottingerus, cum que ante et post leguntur, obliteratis his uerbis 
apte cohzreant. . . . Haud sufficit ad crimen interpolationis si quid salua 
συναφείᾳ orationis preetermitti possit”). Jacoby (W7 ZEthzk, 153f., 193f.) 


ascribes 5)? (p. 174) toa redactor who added γνῶμαι like those of 11% and 
418-16 (16-17), 


§ 3. Situation.—The author is a Christian διδάσκαλος (com- 
pare and-contrast 212 with He 51%), trained in Hellenistic 
Judaism, who is keenly alive to the laxity of the moral situation 
within the church, and who seldom allows his readers to go far 
from the agenda of the faith, repudiating, with the vivid 


* Schulthess quaintly confesses: ‘‘ ut fatear quod res est, admodum lubeat 
v.% qui saluo contextu abesse posset, pro interpolato putare. Nam cuius 
fides erga Deum mendaci perfidia in ciuitatem suam regemque probatur, mali 
exempli est populo Christi. Hinc facile colligi posset, infidelibus fidem 
nullam habendam esse. Ceterum apostolis ignoscendum, si quando 
dormitabant” (pp. 129-130). 


464 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


rhetoric of the διατριβή, a Christianity of the head or of the 
tongue. Of him it might be said, in the words of a modern 
novelist (G. W. Cable in Dr. Sevier, p. 7), that “his inner heart 
was all of flesh; but his demands for the rectitude of mankind 
pointed out like the muzzles of cannon through the embrasures 
of his virtues.” In one hundred and eight verses, fifty-four . 
imperatives have been counted; they lie side by side with 
passages of deep sympathy, but of praise there is not a syllable. 
He has been dubbed the Jeremiah of the NT, though his affinities 
are rather with the pungent and stubborn realism of a prophet 
like Amos. His sympathies clung to an Essene-like character 
which again resembles the simplicity and winsomeness of Francis 
the great Poverello (cp. von Dobschiitz, ZZ. xi. 1. pp. r1o0f.). 


The address fo the twelve tribes of the dispersion (11) denotes, not Christians 
of Jewish birth, but Christendom in general conceived under the cecumenical 
symbol of ancient Israel (cp. Gal 615, Rev 74 2113); it is probably an 
abbreviated form of 1 P 11. The term for their écclesiastical organisation is 
ἐκκλησία (514); the phrase εἰς συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν (23) means 2γιέο your gathering or 
meeting (cp. He 10” ; Ignat. ad Polyk. 4? πυκνότερον συναγωγαὶ γινέσθωσαν ; 
Theoph. ad Autolyk. 214 δέδωκεν ὁ θεὸς τῷ κοσμῷ . . . τὰς συναγωγὰς, 
λεγομένας δὲ ἐκκλησίας ἁγίας, etc.), not a literal synagogue in which a 
majority of Jewish Christians had obtained administrative authority.* 
Abraham is the father of these Christians (27, cp. Hebrews, Paul, and Clem. 
Rom.), and Christianity is described as the perfect law of freedom (135), which 
means not the Zorah but the λόγος or revelation of God in Jesus Christ 
as the nascent catholicism of the later church viewed it (cp. Barn 2° ὁ καινὸς 
νόμος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἄνευ ζυγοῦ δουλίας ; Justin’s Dial. 124; 
etc.). Instead of the freedom from law, which Paul taught, and at which 
this writer looked askance in the popular Paulinism of his own day, he 


* For such an idea there is no evidence, and the probabilities, even during 
the seventh decade of the first century, are strongly against it. Συναγωγή 
was a term taken over from Greek worship (=annual gatherings of religious 
cults) as an equivalent of ἐκκλησία (cp. Heinrici in ZW7., 1876, pp. 523f., 
and Harnack on the parallel passage in Hermas, J/and. xi. 9), though 
the Ebionites were almost alone in preferring it to the latter term (Epiph. 
xxx. 18). The absence of ἐπίσκοποι in 514 is no proof of a very 
primitive period. Here and there churches existed, long after the first 
century, which had no officials save πρεσβύτεροι and διδάσκαλοι. Dionysius 
of Alexandria, ¢g. (Eus. 22 2. vii. 24. 6), refers to village-churches in 
Egypt as late as the middle of the third century which were thus organised. 
The ep. of James in all likelihood originated in some community of this 
primitive or rather archaic order, off the main line of the general Christian 
development. The slowness of its recognition and circulation as an 
cecumenical homily was due to its original mz/zew in a comparatively obscure 
(Nazarene ?) circle. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 465 


proclaims a law of freedom—the correcting motive being much the same as 
that of a passage like 1 Ti 1**. There is no reference in the epistle which 
necessarily involves the Jewish Christian character of the readers—not even 
2, which is more apt as the definition of a monotheism which would 
distinguish a Gentile Christian’s faith from his pagan polytheism. Pagan 
outsiders did occasionally attend the worship of the early Christians (cp. 27 
with 1 Co 147%), but, in face of the Christian admonitions in 1% (cp. 
1 Co 67"), it is not necessary to suppose that the rich persons of 27% 415: 51-6 
were Jews, much less pagans. The racial divisions of Jewish and Gentile 
Christians really do not exist for this writer any more than for the autor ad 
Hebreos ; his horizon is cecumenical Christendom, and his period a time when 
the older parties had become fused. 

The writer has either misapprehended Paulinism or he is 
correcting a popular abuse (in Gentile Christian circles? Sieffert) 
of Paul’s teaching upon faith, which had laid exaggerated stress 
on faith as the supreme and sole basis of genuine religion, until 
a certain indifference to morality had sprung up, accompanied by 
a false view of faith itself, as if it were equivalent to a formal act 
of assent to this or that article of belief. So far as the Christian 

raxis pf religion is concerned, James and Paul are at one,* 
but each lays the emphasis on different syllables. The πίστις of 
Ja 2 }*°6 is an acceptance of the divine νόμος as an impulse and 
standard of moral conduct; the caricature of it, which he 
denounces, is a belief which is divorced from good behaviour. 
Paul could never have used the term dead /aith (235), although 
he had often in mind the same ethical fruitlessness which roused 
the indignation of James. Furthermore, what James calls ἔργα, 
Paul described as /rutts of the Spirit (Gal 5%); to Paul ἔργα are 
ἔργα νόμου, and over against them he sets πίστις. The idea that 
a man was justified by works and faith combined (Ja 233) is 
contrary to the genius of Paul’s religion, and thus, although both 
James and he agree in their demand for an ethical faith, the 
demand is based upon different conceptions of what faith means. 


* Modern harmonising discussions have seldom advanced far beyond 
Augustine’s explanation, (Migne, xl. pp. 87f., 211): ‘non sunt sibi contrariz 
duorum apostolorum sententiz Pauli et Jacobi, cum dicit unus, justificari 
hominem per fidem sine operibus, et alius dicit, inanem esse fidem sine 
operibus: quia ille dicit de operibus, que fidem praecedunt, iste de iis, que 
fidem sequuntur ; sicut etiam ipse Paulus multis locis ostendit.” For the 
history of opinion, see Bartmann, pp. 2f.; Reuss, 7.7. § 143, and 
Holtzmann, V77h. ii. 329f. 

¢ Luther’s indignant comment on this verse is : “ΕἸ Maria, Gottes Mutter, 
wie eine arme similitudo ist das! Confert fidem corp: ri, cum potius anime 
fuisset comparanda.” 


320 


466 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


That the controversy presupposes the Pauline propaganda is 
beyond all reasonable doubt. There is not evidence to show 
that pre-Christian Judaism knew this problem of a contrast 
between faith and works in relation to justification, or that 
even pre-Pauline Christianity had any consciousness of such a 
difficulty. The stamp of Paul is on a phrase like δικαιοῦται ἐκ 
πίστεως. 

§ 4. Literary connections—While πὸ literary connection 
between Jas. and either Hebrews or the Apocalypse is demon- 
| . 
| strable, the dependence of the epistle upon not only 1 P. (see 
| above, p. 338) but some of Paul’s epistles (especially Romans, 

e.g. 124=Ro 535, 186= Ro 4%, 122=Ro 218, 211- Ro 222%, 221 = 
Ro 41", 2%= Ro 328, 41=Ro 723, 447=Ro 87, 42 =Ro 21; also 
r—=71 Co 3%, Gal 6°, 28= 1 Ὁ τὴ 3) = 1 Co 2% ot Bae 
Ro 13, 20—Gal 5°, 4#5—Gal 51),) is plain, , Jt would@be 
gratuitous scepticism, in view of the polemic in 2™f, to doubt 
that Jas. draws upon the conceptions which Paul had already 
minted for the primitive church.* On the other hand, the 
resemblances between Jas. and Ephesians (eg. 148=Eph 41, 
5181. -- Eph 519 618) are indecisive. 


The reminiscences of the synoptic tradition indicate a predilection for 
their Matthzean form (e.g. 1°73 =Mt 7%, 348=Mt 59, 5!2= Mt 5°87), although 
no evidence for the literary use of any canonical gospel is available, not 
even for Luke, with whose gospel there are several parallels (cp. Feine, 
eine vorkanon, Ueberlieferung, pp. 132-133), ¢.g. in 1&=Lk 119, 17= Lk 1138, 
1. 5 10 6. ae — 6 ΟΝ ace gi! with Lk 34 ὙΣ and. 167, '3*=Lk 125) 
4¢=Lk 163, gB=Lk 12161, g7=Lk 1257, 51=6%25, and s7=Lk 4%. 
There is the same fusion of Wisdom-ideas with the tradition and formation 
of the evangelic logia, and the same attitude ¢ towards wealth which has led 
many writers to ascribe a sort of Ebionistic sympathy to Luke (cp. £47. ii. 
1841). This neighbourhood to the Lucan writings will further explain the 
apparent coincidences { between Jas and the speech and pastoral letter of 
Ac 1515: Χαίρειν is the common epistolary salutation (used by Lk. in 
Ac 23°); neither it nor the equally natural ἀκούσατε ἀδελῴοί μου points to 
any characteristic of the speaker or writer. The alternative is to use these 
data as proof of the Jacobean authorship, or to conjecture that the pseudony- 
mous author of the homily drew upon the Lucan tradition of his prototype. 


* See, especially, Zimmer’s essay ; Schwegler, VZ. i. 430-438; Reuss, 
Weiffenbach, and von Soden, 

+ The treatment of money and its perils, of labour and its rights, of 
swearing, and so forth, is occasionally parallel to Essenism (cp. pp. 270 f. of 
Massebieau’s essay, cited below). 

+ Noticed, over a century ago, by M. Weber in an essay De epist. Jacobi 
cum epist. εἰ orat. etusdem Actis inserta utiliter comparanda (1795). 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 467 


The data provided by Clem. Rom: hardly seem to warrant 
the conclusion (held, ¢g., by Hilgenfeld, Spitta, Hort, Parry: 
pp. 73-74; Mayor, and Zahn) that Jas. was before the mind of 
that writer. The citations in 233 (=Ja 1) and 30? (=Ja 45) 
probably go back to a common source in each case (see above, 
Ρ- 32). Clement does combine faith and works (e.g. in 12 and 
31), but there is no indication that he was balancing or reconcil- 
ing (so Mayor and Meinertz) Paul and James—to the latter of 
whom he never alludes; the allusions to Rahab, Abraham, and 
Job were commonplaces of Jewish and Christian thought (cp. 
Hebrews) ; and the few verbal parallels, which are seldom very 
close, are probably coincidences (41*=Clem. Rom. 215; 4!= 
Clem. Rom. 465, cp. Plato’s Phed. 66 C; 343=Clem. Rom. 38%, 
cp. Sir 31733; 11%21—Clem. Rom. 131!) due to community of 
atmosphere, rather than to borrowing on the part of Clement or 
of James (Holtzmann).* 

The case for dependence becomes clearer in Hermas. Some 
of the parallels here again may be accounted for by the 
use of a common source like £/dad and Modad (see above, 
p. 32), or the OT, but others are fairly unambiguous; eg. the 
repeated collocations of the divine πνεῦμα with κατῴκισεν (45= 
Mand. iii. 1, Sim. v. 6. 5-7, cp. Mand. v. 2. 5-7), of διψυχία with 
prayers (148 -- Mand. ix. passim), of bridling (xaAwaywyeiv) and 
taming (32. 8= Mand. xii. 1. 1-2) ; 47= Mand. xii. 2. 4, 4. 7, 5. 
2; 48= Vis. iii. 2. 2, and a number of minor resemblances like 
those of 18= Mand. v. 2. 7; 25 +516 = Sim. 11. 5 ; 27+52=Sim. viii. 
6. 4; 3°=Sim. ix. 26.7, Mand. it. 2. 33 34° (x)= Mand. ix 11; 
5l4+= Vis. ili. 9. 4-6, etc. These data (deployed by Spitta, of. cit. 
382f.; Zahn, Hirt d. Hermas, 396-409 ; Dr. C. Taylor in Journ. 
of Philology, xviii. 297 f., and Dr. J. Drummond in VZA. 108- 
113) indicate not simply a common atmosphere (Ropes), much 
less the dependence of Jas. on Hermas (Pfleiderer), but a strong 
probability that Jas., like the Tabula of Cebes, was known to 
the latter author. In this event, Hermas furnishes a terminus ad 
guem for the composition of James. But its circulation must 
have been limited, possibly to Syrian or Palestinian circles of 
the church, since it is not until the literature of the third 
century that any definite allusion occurs to the existence of this 
writing, and even then the first mention of it (by Origen) shows 


* Prof. Bacon (/BL., 1900, 12-22, on ‘‘ the doctrine of faith in Hebrews, 
Jas., and Clement of Rome”) arranges the documents in that order. 


468 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


that much hesitation was felt about its right to a place in the 
apostolic canon. The great Alexandrian scholar once refers to 
it as ἡ φερομένη Ἰακώβου ἐπιστολή (Ln Joann. tom. xix. 6), and 
(on Mt 135556) elsewhere fails to mention James as its author 
even when he speaks of Judas as the author of the epistle of 
Judas. Eusebius also classes it (‘the epistle circulating under 
the name of James’) among the disputed books which were - 
familiar to most Christians (4%. £. iii. 33), and adds, after 
mentioning the martyrdom of James, that “the first of the so- 
called catholic epistles is said to be his. But I must observe 
that it is considered spurious. Certainly not many writers of 
antiquity have mentioned either it or the epistle of Judas, which 
is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles. Still we 
know that these have been used in public along with the rest of 
the scriptures in most churches” (7. Z. ii. 23). Some deemed 
it pseudonymous (see below, p. 472). Indeed, the external 
evidence is strongly adverse; not until the end of the fourth 
century did the homily succeed in gaining the official sanction of 
the canon. This hesitation may have been due, in part, to an 
uncertainty about the apostolic rank of James, or to the com- 
paratively obscure origin of the writing; but it is more intelligible 
upon the hypothesis that Jas. was of late origin, than on the view 
that it was a product of the primitive church, prior to Α.Ὁ. 70. 

ὃ 5. Date.—The hypothesis of Jas. as a pre-Pauline document, 
the product of a Christianity whose theology was still undeveloped, 
has been advocated, e.g. by Neander, Theile, Bunsen, Ritschl, 
Hofmann, Schegg, Mangold, Lechler, Erdmann, Alford (¢ A.D. 
45), Bassett, Huther, Weiss, Beyschlag, Blanc-Milsand (Etude 
sur Lorigine et le développement de la Théol. Apostolique, 1884, 
pp. 36-57), Salmon (JWZ. 448-468), Carr, Gibson, F. H. 
Kriiger (Revue Chrét., 1887, 605f., 686f.), Meyrick (Smith’s 
DB. 1520-1522), Bartlet (4A. 217-250), Stevens (V7Th. 249- 
252), A. van Heeren (Col/ationes Brugenses, xvii. 316 f.), Patrick, 
Mayor, Zahn, Belser, and Meinertz. The salient objections to 
this hypothesis are: (a) The total absence of any early 
tradition, even in Jewish Christian circles, which associates 
James with the composition of an epistle like this, or indeed 
of any epistle. Had the revered head of the Jerusalem church 
written such a manifesto, it is difficult to understand its com- 
parative oblivion for two centuries. (4) While it would be 
naively uncritical to assume that the vices denounced by the 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 469 


homily must have taken nearly a century to develop in early 
Christianity, on the other hand they are not specifically Jewish. 
Their soil is human nature, not Jewish. (c) While the range of 
education open to Galileans is not to be underrated—Jesus him- 
self may have known some of the Wisdom writings (see above, 
p. 26),—it is hardly conceivable that a man like James should 
possess the wide culture, the acquaintance with classical as well 
as Jewish writings (LXX., not Hebrew), the rhetorical and 
idiomatic Greek style,* and the power of literary expression 
and allusion which characterise this writing. (d) The entire 
absence of allusions to the proofs of the resurrection (after 1 Co 
15”) and the messianic claims of Jesus, even where (e.g. at 214 
415: 514f-) they would have been to the point. To suppose that 
these could be taken for granted at this period of Christianity, 
especially among Jews or Jewish Christians of the diaspora, is 
to violate historical probabilities even more seriously than to 
posit such an attitude to the moral and ceremonial Law on the 
part of the rigid James 7 prior to Paul’s propaganda. 

A final difficulty (e), that the epistle presupposes a knowledge 
of the Pauline gospel and epistles, is obviated by the hypothesis 
which would relegate the composition of the epistle to the 
seventh decade, though still adhering to the authorship of James. 
This view, which was formerly held by Mill (Prolegomena, p. 7) 
and Hug, is championed by Schafer (Z7z/. 304f.), Trenkle 
(Zinl. 2tof.), Scholten, Cornely, Weiffenbach, Bleek, Farrar 
(Early Days of Christianity, 309-311), Sabatier, Hort (JC. 148), 
Felten, Jacoby (VZ’ £¢hik, 200f.), T. A. Gurney (ZZ. xiv. 
320f.), Parry (A.D. 62, or a few years later), Bartmann, and 
Barth, mainly on the ground that the matter-of-fact and even 
cursory tone in which the Christian principles are mentioned 
shows that ‘these have been thoroughly assimilated by the 
minds and consciences both of the writer and of his readers. 
We are at a late stage rather than an early stage in the develop- 
ment of the Christian conscience, social and individual” (Parry, 


* Some, ¢.g. Sabatier (pp. 132f.), get over this by suggesting that he used 
a secretary ; but there is no hint of this in the epistle, and the further difficulty 
of the wide culture remains. 

+ It is usually assumed that James of Jerusalem was the author, not James 
the brother of John (Ac 127). The tradition of the church has never been 
quite unanimous on the relationship between James the brother of Jesus and 
James the son of Alphzus. 


470 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


op. cit. p. 31). On this view the epistle might be written by 
James (partly before his conversion, Symes?) to Paul’s Jewish 
Christian converts in Syria and Cilicia (Gal 113; so, e.g., Kiihl and 
Hoennicke) ; but a more plausible form of this hypothesis would 
be that of Renan (iv. ch. iii.), who regards the homily as an 
anti-Pauline invectiveagainst the rich and overbearing Sadducees of 
Jerusalem. In favour of this date it may be urged that James, 
as represented even in Acts, stood for an attitude of Jewish 
Christian aloofness towards Paul, while in Gal 212 Paul himself 
distinctly conveys the impression that the intruders from 
Jerusalem were emissaries of James {τινες ἀπὸ ᾿Ιακώβου) who 
claimed his authority for acting on behalf of rigorous Jewish 
Christians. Unless, however, we assume a modification of 
James’ position, under the influence of Paul,* or attribute to 
him a fairly liberal view of the situation, the seventh-decade date 
presents more psychological and historical difficulties than even 
the earlier date. 


Several of the objections, moreover, which are valid against the latter (a, 4, 
ὦ, and in part a), still operate against this hypothesis, and the additional 
drawback emerges, that no reference occurs to questions like circumcision and 
the general problem of the Law, which were organic to the controversy 
between Paul and James over the relations of Jewish and Gentile Christians. 
It is such considerations which have suggested a later period for the composi- 
tion of this pastoral. ‘* Nous ne serons donc pas étonnés de voir la critique 
contemporaine pencher de plus en plus vers l’opinion que cette épitre de 
Jacques date du second age et a été en partie écrite pour réagir contre une 
tendance, peut-étre mal appréciée, laquelle elle-méme n’appartenait pas aux 
débuts de l’enseignement apostolique ” (Reuss, Les ¢pitres catholiques, p. 117). 


A later date, prior to the end of the first century, is advo- 
cated generally by Hilgenfeld (Zin/. 537-542), Klopper, S. 
Davidson (doubtfully), McGiffert (4.4. 579-585), J. Réville (Zes 
origines de Vépiscopat, pp. 230 f.), A. H. Blom (‘de achtergrond 
van den Jakobusbrief,’ 7Z., 1881, 439-449), Bacon (JIVZ. 158- 
165), von Soden (doubtfully), and Rovers (Zind. 93). A date 
¢. A.D. 100 is favoured by Knopf (2VZ. 34-35), while others 
(e.g. Baur, Church History, Eng. tr. i. 128-130; Schwegler, VZ. 
i. 413 f., 441 ἔν, and Volkmar, ZWTZ., 1861, p. 427) fix generally 


* So, e.g., Gould (V7'7%. 102 f.), who notes that ‘‘the mind of Christ, 
but not his personal spell, is exhibited here in many essential matters.” Yet 
it is just this personal impression which we would expect in James, whether 
he was the son of Alpheus (Meinertz) or the son of Joseph and Mary, at 
least as much as in Peter (see above, p. 334). 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 471 


on the period of the pastoral epistles or on that of Hermas (e.g. 
Holtzmann and Pfleiderer’s U7c. iv. 293 f., regarding Jas. as a pro- 
test against the secularising tendencies of contemporary Christi- 
anity).* Briickner (Chron. 60 f., 287 f.) assigns it to a conventicle 
of Jewish Christian Essenism, during the reign of Hadrian; 
Jiilicher (Zin/Z. § 16), like Usteri (SX., 1889, 211-256) and Grafe, 
thinks of the period a.p. 125-150; Peake (V7. 87) assigns ‘a 
date comparatively early in the second century,’ owing to the lack 
of any anti-gnostic references ; N. Schmidt (Prophet of Nazareth, 
p. 191) conjectures ὦ A.D. 150, Ropes, A.D. 75-125, and W. 
Wrede (Exntstehung der Schriften des NT, 91-92), A.D. 110-140. 
This hypothesis, in a general form, has the merit of explain- 
ing more of the internal data, and of explaining them more 
satisfactorily, than any other. The so-called primitiveness of 
the epistle, with its undogmatic or rather anti-dogmatic bias, is 
explicable, not against any imaginary + background of a nascent 
elementary stage in Christianity, at which the appreciation of 
Jesus was still meagre, but in the light of such moralistic 
tendencies and features as emerged in certain circles of Christi- 
anity towards the opening of the second century, when for 
various reasons, as Klopper puts it, the moral deficiencies of 
Christian conduct were being covered by the withered fig-leaves 
of an intellectual belief, and a higher legalism was promulgated 
as an antidote. The atmosphere and situation resemble the 
moralism of the Didaché; the distinctively religious tenets are 
assumed (cp. He 6%) rather than proclaimed. Upon the 
other hand, any idea of anti-gnostic polemic or of allusions to 
persecutions must be given up. The range of the homily does 
not include such hints of its environment. 

The blanched Christology of the Didaché and Diognetus throws light also 
upon the scanty allusions to Jesus which, in a primitive apostle, are almost 
incomprehensible. One of the most vital and central ideas of the primitive 
Christian preaching, in all its phases, was the relation of Christ’s death to 


the forgiveness of sins. But James refers to the latter in a Jewish manner 
(5%), devoid of any specifically Christian background. It is not possible 


* Cp. Steck (ZSchw., 1889, xv. 3), J. H. Wilkinson (4/7. ii. 120-123), 
and Cone (£47. 2321 f.). Those who are satisfied with the proofs of the 
epistle’s use by Clem. Rom. are naturally able to place it within the first 
century. Otherwise, Hermas furnishes the ¢ermzinus ad quem, just as Romans 
or I Peter the terminus a quo. 

+ Ac 15%" is no argument to the contrary, for it was written for a specific 
purpose ; James is a general homily. 


472 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


to explain this away by pleading that the homily has a practical bent. As 
if the forgiveness of sins, owing to Christ’s death, was not intensely practical 
to the early Christian! On the other hand, while no pre-occupation with 
OT conceptions can be supposed to have excluded from an apostle’s purview 
the belief in forgiveness through the death of Christ, this and other pheno- 
mena become intelligible in the neighbourhood of writings like Hermas. 
Luther’s comment on 2% —‘‘und nicht viel von Christo”—applies to the 
greater part of the homily; it is unnatural (with Parry, 23-24) to take 
τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης as a summary of the 
preceding paragraphs, as if the Lord Jesus Christ here were an embodiment 
of ὁ ἔμφυτος λόγος, and our Glory a description of Christ as the ideal embodi- 
ment of human nature’s glory, nor is there any allusion to the death of Jesus 
even where we would expect it, in 51! (see above). It is possible to deduce 
from the homily characteristics which may fit into a view of James’ character 
towards the end of his life, but such reconstructions are at best fanciful ; 
although a certain amount of ambiguity attaches to any view of the writing, 
there is perhaps less violence done to the probabilities of the evidence, 
internal and external, upon the later hypothesis than upon any other. 


§ 6. Authorship.—The main problem, upon this view, is to 
explain the authorship in the light of 14. (a) The pseudony- 
mous hypothesis arose early (see the early prologue to the 
cath. epp. discussed in Revue Bénéd., 1906, 82f.; and Jerome, 
utr. inlustr. 2: “Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, unam 
tantum scripsit epistolam, qua de septem catholicis est; que 
et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine eius edita asseritur, licet 
paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem ἢ). But the 
lack of any emphasis upon the apostle’s personality and authority 
(no ἀπόστολος in 11, as in τ P 1}, 2 P τ) tells against this 
theory. If a second-century writer, who wished to counteract 
some ultra-Paulinists (cp. 2 P 216), had chosen the name of the 
revered head of the Jerusalem church (so, ¢.g., 5. Davidson, Grafe, 
Jiilicher), why did he not make more of Paul’s opponent? To 
argue that he refrained from introducing such traits, lest his 
writing should incur suspicion as a literary fiction, is to attribute 
too modern and subtle motives to him. At the same time, the 
practical motive of the writer, and the conviction that he was in 
sympathy with James, may have been felt to justify such a literary 
method (see above, p. 340). (4) A variant hypothesis argues that, 
while it was erroneously ascribed in the course of tradition to 
James the apostle, it was really written by some other James (so, 
e.g., Erasmus, “fieri potest ut nomen commune cum apostolo 
prebuerit occasionem ut hec epistola Iacobo apostolo ascrib- 
eretur, cum fuerit alterius cuiusdam Jacobi,” Pfleiderer, etc.). The 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 473 


interpretation of the title as the self-designation of the Lord’s 
brother would be natural in an age when no Christian writing 
could hope to secure canonical prestige or to retain its place 
in ecclesiastical use, if it had not some link with the apostles. 
(c) Finally, 11 may be taken in whole or part as an addition 
of the early church (so Harnack, ZU. ii. 2. 106f., and ACL. ii. 
1. 485-491; Bacon, ZVZ. pp. 158-165; McGiffert*), or a 
Jacobean nucleus (Oesterley), to which later excerpts from 
other writings were added, may be postulated. The conjecture 
(G. C. Martin, £xf.7 iii. 174-184) that the writing was originally 
a collection of logia with comments made by James the brother 
of Jesus, and issued in his name after A.D. 70 as a treatise on 
practical Christianity, helps to reconcile the late circulation of 
the book with its primitive character, and clears up the address ; 
but it does not explain 2!4%6, and it lies open to most of the 
objections valid against any theory of apostolic authorship, 
though it is better than Weizsdcker’s (AA. 11. 27f.) similar 
hypothesis of an Ebionitic anti-Pauline tract, containing glosses 
and expansions of Matthzan logia, written not by James but by 
some one after A.D. 70. 

The question of the date thus depends upon the crucial 
problem of the authorship, and that in turn falls to be decided 
primarily upon two internal features, the religious colour and 
the style. Each of these features has set literary criticism 
recently in motion towards and away from the apostolic author- 
ship. The comparative lack of any definitely Christian traits and 
the strangely Jewish colouring of the homily as a whole have 
started two hypotheses: (i.) One is represented by the inde- 
pendent attempts of Spitta and Massebieau (‘L’épitre de 
Jacques, est-elle Pceuvre d’un Chrétien?’ RAR., 1895, pp. 249- 
283) to prove that the writing was originally the work of a 
Jewish writer (‘un juif, helléniste, lettré, atteint par la philo- 
sophie grecque, universaliste, connaissant le milieu théologique 
de la Dispersion,’ Massebieau, pp. 270 f.) which has been edited 
and adopted (in 1! 2!) for the uses of the Christian church. 
But, even apart from the lack of allusions to any ritual or legal 


* “Tt is possible that the phrase, ‘James, a servant of God and of the 
Lord Jesus Christ,’ was added to the anonymous epistle under the influence 
of the parallel words in the epistle of Jude” (p. 585). The tradition which 
associates the ep. of Judas with Judas the brother of Jesus is much earlier 
and stronger than the Jacobean. 


474 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


usages, which would be natural in a Jewish original, the Christian 
sense of passages like 118 (=the regenerating word, not the 
word of creation), 27 (τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα), and 57% (ἡ παρουσία τοῦ 
κυρίου), is unmistakable ; a Christian interpolator would scarcely 
have contented himself with inserting so little, when he could 
have added references to Christ’s ‘life, e.g., at 514; and he would 
probably have left 2! clearer.* (ii.) The ingenious suggestion 
that the epistle was composed by James of Jerusalem for the 
benefit of Jews, not of Christians (J. H. Moulton, Zx/." iv. 45- 
55), is liable to the same objections which invalidate the Jewish 
hypothesis or that of James the apostle’s authorship, viz. the 
absence of any specific allusion to the burning questions of the 
law (with regard to circumcision especially) and of the messianic 
claims of Jesus, which agitated Jewish Christendom at that early 
period. Can we suppose that a Christian, especially one of 
James’s position, suppressed his distinctively Christian beliefs in 
order to recommend Christian morals to Jews? The hypothesis 
fails to provide adequate motives for such a procedure, and the 
difficulty of 214f is practically as great on this view as on that of 
Spitta and Massebieau. 


The conviction that so rich and idiomatic a Greek style—to say nothing 
of the culture (cp. Hilgenfeld, Z2#/. 539f.)—could not have been at the | 
command of a man like James of Jerusalem,t has tempted several critics 
(e.g. Faber, observ. in epistolam Jacobt ex Syro, 1770; Schmidt, Bertholdt, 
and Wordsworth, S&. i. pp. 144 f.) to conjecture that the epistle was 
originally written in Aramaic. But the Corbey old Latin version, with all 
its peculiarities, does not hark back to a Greek text which was, like the 
canonical text, a version of any Aramaic original. The epistle has asson- 
ances and idioms which preclude any idea of its being a translation; most of 
it is as distinctively and independently Greek as a page of Marcus Aurelius 
(cp. Mayor’s ed. ch. x. and Jacquier’s /V7. iii. 228-230). Besides, it is 


* For adverse discussions, see especially Mayor (Zxf.° vi. 1-14, 321-338 
and in pp. cliv-clxxviii of his edition), van Manen (77., 1897, 398-427: 
‘Jacobus geen Christen ?’), Wrede (ZC., 1896, 450-451), von Soden (7ZZ., 
1897, 581-584), Adeney (Critical Review, 1896, 277-283), Haupt (SX, 
1896, 747-777), Steck (ZSchw., 1898, pp. 169-188); Harnack (4CZ. ii. 
I. pp. 485-491), R. P. Rose (RA. v. 519-534), and Patrick (James the 
Lord’s Brother, 1906, 337-343). His companion hypothesis of a Jewish 
original for Hermas has met with equal disfavour (cp. Réville in RAR., 
1897, 117-122, and Stahl’s Patrist. Studien, 1901, pp. 299-356). 

+ The best statement of the case for the bi-lingual attainments (Aramaic 
and Greek) of most Palestinians is given by Dr. James Hadley in Zssays 
Philological and Critical (1873), pp. 403 f. 


TWO LETTERS OF JOHN THE PRESBYTER 475 


highly improbable that any epistle, intended ex hyfothes? for circulation 
throughout the diaspora, would be written in Aramaic. Whatever bearing 
the fact has upon the origin of the writing, it should be acknowledged 
frankly that the author, like the auctor ad Hebreos, was thinking, as well 
as composing, in Greek. 


The wide differences of critical opinion upon James are not 
unparalleled in other departments of literary inquiry. Thus 
a very different writing, the C77is, was not only attributed to 
Vergil himself, but has been placed either before him or after 
him, as a work which either influenced, or was influenced by, 
his language. An almost equally large range has been covered 
by the efforts of classical scholars to place the Aetna of the 
Vergilian appendix, and the Vux of Ovid presents similarly 
baffling features. The phenomena of criticism upon the 
Jacobean homily are perplexing, but they are not to be taken as 
discrediting the science of NT literary research. 


(Ὁ) TWO LETTERS OF JOHN THE PRESBYTER 
(2 AND 3 JOHN). 


LITERATURE.—In addition to the editions and studies cited below (p. 582) 
under ‘The First Epistle of John” :—(a) 2 John: Ritmeier (de Electa 
Domina, 1706); C. A. Krigele (de Kupig Joannis, 1758); Carpzov 
( Theologica Exegetica, pp. 105-208); H. G. B. Miiller (Comm. in Secundam 
epistolam Ioannis, 1783); C. Klug (De authentia, etc., 1823) ; Ἐς L. Gachon 
(Authenticité de la 26 et 3¢ épp. de Jean, 1851) ; Knauer (SX, 1833, 452 f.); 
Poggel (Der 2 und 3 Briefe d. Apostel Johannes, 1896)* ; Belser (7Q., 1897, 
150f., review of Poggel); J. Rendel Harris (Zxf.° iii. pp. 194f.); W. 
M. Ramsay (zé¢d. pp. 354f.); Gibbins (2 :χ2.5 xii. 228-236, 2 John a 
prophetic epistle) ; J. Chapman (/7:S, 1904, 357 f., 517 f., ‘The Historical 
Setting of the Second and Third Epistles of St. John’); V. Bartlet (/7S., 
1905, 204-216). (6) 3 John (generally in connection with 2 John): Heu- 
mann’s Commentatio in Joan. ep. 11. (1778); Harnack (7U. xv. 3)*; 
E. C. Selwyn (Zhe Christian Prophets and the Prophetic Apocalypse, 1900, 
133 f.); B. Bresky (Das Verhdltniss d. zwetten Johannesbriefes zum dritten, 
1906); U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Hermes, 1898, 529 f.); G. G. 
Findlay, Pellowship in the Life Eternal (1909), pp. 1-46. 


§ 1. 2 John.—This note is written by a certain πρεσβύτερος 
to a Christian community, figuratively described as ¢he Elect 
Lady, some of whose members he had met (4) and valued for 
their integrity of Christian character. Owing perhaps to infor- 
mation supplied by them, he sends this warning against the indis- 


476 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


criminate entertainment of itinerant teachers * who promulgate 
progressive or ‘advanced’ docetic views (7) upon the person of 
Christ. The note is merely designed to serve (12) till the 
writer arrives in person. He sends greetings to his corre- 
spondents from some community in which he is resident (13) at 
present, and with which they had evidently a close connection. 


That ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία denotes a church is clear, in spite of recent arguments 
to the contrary (Poggel, of. c#t. 127 f. ; Harris), from (a) a comparison of ν. 13 
with 17 and 515 of 1 Peter (an earlier writing circulated in Asia Minor); 
and (4) from the plurals of δ’ 8: 10. and™. The origin of this semi-poetic 
personification of the church (cp. Rev 2217 and Hermas) or of a community 
(cp. 2 Co 11?) as Kupla, may lie in the conception of a Bride of the κύριος 
(Eph 57 * cp. Jn 3%). 


In the absence of any tradition upon the origin and 
destination of the epistle, Baur and Schwegler set to work upon 
a remark of Clemens Alexandrinus (Adumbrationes, iv. 437! 
secunda Johannis epistola, que ad uirgines scripta est, 
simplicissima est; scripta uero est ad quandam Babyloniam 
Electam nomine, significat autem electionem ecclesiz sanctz). 
It is building too much on the term Badyloniam in this 
blundering + fragment (in connection with 1 P 518) to identify 
the church addressed in 2 John with a section of the 
Roman church, however, as though the Diotrephes of 3 John 
were a symbolical expression for the bishop of Rome (Soter 
or Eleutherus), and the later note a controversial missive 
against the pretensions of the hierarchy. No hint of Montanist 
sympathies is visible in the letter, and there is nothing 
specifically Montanist about a term like ἐκλέκτη. 

When all trace of its original destination had been lost, it 
was natural to suppose that it would suit any church, and there- 
fore that it was addressed to the church at large (so Jerome, 


* As in Did. 11)? ‘Whosoever then shall come and teach you all these 
things aforesaid, receive him. But if the teacher himself be perverted and 
teach a different doctrine to the undoing thereof, hear him not; yet if he 
teaches to the increase of righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, 
receive him as the Lord.’ See above, p. 460. 

+ Clement’s error in regarding ‘ Eklekta’ as a Babylonian Christian led 
him (as Zahn ingeniously argues, Forschungen, iii. 92f., 99f., ZT. iii. 383) 
to consider her and her children as Parthians. Hence the erroneous title 
πρὸς Πάρθους (v.1. παρθένους) prefixed to 2 John and afterwards to the 
group of the ‘Johannine’ letters. This solution had been already proposed 
by C. Wordsworth, though, unlike Zahn, he imagined the title to be correct. 


TWO LETTERS OF JOHN THE PRESBYTER 477 


Ep. 1231-2 ad Ageruchiam, after, Clem. Alex.), by a process of 
inference similar to that of the Muratorian Canon on Paul. 
This was a particularly likely interpretation, in view of its 
position among the ‘catholic’ epistles of the Canon. But the 
note must have originally been meant for some definite com- 
munity, most probably for one of those in Asia Minor, though 
it is superfluous to chronicle the endless conjectures. 

§ 2. 3 /ohn.—3 John is another note from the presbyter— 
this time a private note, addressed to Gaius, evidently a convert 
and disciple of the author (4), and a member of the same 
community or house-church (°) as that to which 2 John had 
been written. The immediate occasion of the note is the 
welcome news (8) of Gaius’s adherence to the true faith, and of 
his hospitality (5:8) to itinerant preachers who are, it is implied, 
of sound character and doctrine. The duty of hospitality is 
pressed upon him, instead of, as usual (cp. He 132), upon the 
local church as a whole or its heads (cp. 1 Ti 32, Tit 18; Herm. 
Sim. 1X. 27, etc.), since one of its leaders, a certain Diotrephes 
(9-10), had repudiated the authority and suppressed some previous 
church-epistles of the presbyter, besides denying hospitality to 
his representatives. He would even carry his hostility the 
length of excommunicating their hosts, including Gaius, from 
the local community (cp. Abbott, Dzat. 2258). With this 
opponent the writer promises to deal sharply when he comes in 
person (10). Meanwhile he dispatches the present note (#4), in 
appreciation of his correspondent’s attitude ; Gaius is to continue 
his hospitality to the evangelists in question (6), who now bring 
this note to him. He must have preserved it among his 
papers, but there is no tradition upon his residence. The name 
was so common ® that it is precarious to argue from 1 Co 113 
or Ac 20* that his church was that of Corinth (Michaelis, 
Alexander, Coenen in ZWT., 1872, 264-271), or Pergamos (Wolf, 
Hilgenfeld, Thoma, Findlay), where John is said to have ordained 
him bishop (42. Const. 74°), Thessalonika (another traditional 
site for his bishopric, Chapman), or Thyatira (Bartlet). 

The present note may be a letier of introduction for 
Demetrius (13) and its other bearers (58); although such 
letters were usually addressed to a community or church, not to 

* <*The coincidence of name [with the Gaius of 1 Co 1] is as little 


kurprising as it would be to find two hospitable Smz#/As in distant counties of 
England” (Findlay, p. 37). 


478 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


an individual (cp. 2 Co 3! 8%"; Polyk. PAz/. 14), the circum- 
stances were peculiar in this case (see above). If ἐκκλησίας 
could be read in v.!2 (cp. Gwynn, Hermathena, 1890, 304), 
Demetrius would be a presbyter. The name is too common to 
make it likely that he is to be identified with the Demas of 
2 Ti 410 (Chapman),—as though the writer wished to prevent his 
bad reputation from discrediting him,—or with the Demetrius of 
Ac 19% (so recently Selwyn and Bartlet); and there is no reason 
to suppose (with Harnack and others) that the note of ν.9 was 
written to him, or that he was the sole bearer of 3 John. 


The note is set in a new light by the hypothesis of Harnack (of. czt., also 
AD. i. pp. 213f., and Zhe Constitution and Law of the Church in First 
Two Centuries, 100f. ; cp. Schmiedel in #&z. 3146-3147), followed by von 
Dobschiitz (Ure. 220-222), Windisch, and Knopf (2VZ. pp. 206 f.), that the 
presbyter, who had already (2 Jn 1°) put the* church on its guard against 
itinerant preachers, is here opposed as an intruder by Diotrephes, the head of 
some local church, who feels that the interests of the organisation are no 
longer compatible with the outside supervision exercised over the Asiatic 
communities by the presbyter himself. The territorial authority of the latter 
is repudiated. On this view, the presbyter would be making a conservative 
protest against the first of the monarchical bishops. It was unsuccessful. By 
the time Ignatius came to write, the monarchical episcopate was fairly settled 
in Asia Minor; the action of Diotrephes was ratified by history, and John 
the presbyter’s reputation rested on his writings, not on his ecclesiastical 
policy. The theory, however, involves some speculative treatment of 2 John, 
e.g. the assumption that κυρία practically admits the church’s independence ; 
also the assumption that Diotrephes was a bishop, and that he represented 
the monarchical episcopate, whereas he may have been on quite the opposite 
side ; and finally, the assumption that his fault was ecclesiastical rather than 
doctrinal (cp. Kriiger, ZW7., 1898, 307-311; Hilgenfeld, zdzd. 316-320; 
and Belser, 7Q., 1897, 150f.). 


§ 3. Traces of 2 and 3 John in sub-apostolic literature.— 
No clear allusion to either note occurs in the apostolic fathers ; 
3 Jn 12 need not lie behind the phrase of Papias in Eus. . £. 
iii. 39. 3 (ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς παραγινομένας ἀληθείας), and Ignatius did not 
require to have read 2 Jn 10 in order to write ad Smyrn. 4}. 
The existence of the pair is plain, however. The allusion in the 
Muratorian Canon (‘epistula sane Judz et superscripti [supra- 


* Harnack considers 2 John to have been written, however, to another 
church, and refuses, on inadequate grounds, to see 2 John in 3 John ® But 
this allusion in ® (ἔγραψα) refers in all likelihood to 2 John rather than 
to 1 John or to some lost epistle ; it was in order to avoid the last-named 
suggestion that ἄν was added at an early stage in the textual history of the 
letter. 


TWO LETTERS OF JOHN THE PRESBYTER 479 


scripti?] Ioannis duz in catholica ,habentur’) is certainly to 
2 and 3 John (cp. Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays, g9-100); the 
fragment has already referred to 1 John, which went with the 
Fourth gospel. Irenzus (ili. 16. 8, cp. i. 16. 3) quotes 2 Jn 
18 as if it came from 1 John, with a laxity which is not un- 
exampled in subsequent writers. Both were known to Clement 
and Dionysius of Alexandria. For their earliest appearance, at a 
later date, in the Syrian church, see Gwynn (ermathena, 1890, 
281f.). Codex Bez originally had 3 John (and therefore, 
probably, 2 John and 1 John) immediately before Acts, the 
‘Johannine’ epistles thus following the Fourth gospel. 2 and 3 
John could only have survived on account of their traditionai 
connection with their author, and when the later development 
of the Johannine tradition obliterated John the presbyter in 
favour of his apostolic namesake, 2 and 3 John, like the 
Apocalypse, usually passed into the canon (so far as they passed 
in at all) as compositions of John the apostle. 


It was probably the fugitive character and the doctrinal insignificance 
of the notes which not only prevented their wide circulation but started 
doubts upon their canonicity. Origen (quoted in Eus. #. 35. vi. 25. 10: 
[Iwdvyns] καταλέλοιπεν καὶ ἐπιστολὴν πάνυ ὀλίγων στίχων, ἔστω δὲ καὶ 
δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην" ἐπεὶ οὐ πάντες φασὶν γνησίους εἶναι ταύτας" πλὴν οὔκ εἰσιν 
στίχων ἀμφότεραι ἑκατόν) and his pupil Dionysius (in .,7. £. vii. 25. 10) both 
reflect these suspicions, Eusebius (27. Z. iii. 25. 3), in mentioning the notes 
among the NT ἀντιλεγόμενα, alludes to the possibility that they were by a 
namesake of the apostle ; this early tradition, which is definitely chronicled 
by Jerome (de wir. inlustr.g: ‘relique autem due... Iohannis pres- 
byteri adseruntur, 18: . . . superiorem opinionem, qua ἃ plerisque 
rettulimus traditum duas posteriores epistulas Iohannis non apostoli esse, zed 
presbyteri’), and which reappears elsewhere (cp. p. 17 δπά 77:5. i. 534f.), 
has been largely ratified by modern research. 


§ 4. Authorship.—The πρεσβύτερος is unnamed. Even on 
the theory that John the apostle survived till the beginning of 
the second century in Asia Minor and wrote one or both of the 
larger ‘ Johannine’ books, it would not follow that he composed 
these notes. There is no claim to apostolic authority, even in 
3 John where it would have been relevant on discipline and 
doctrine ; and although Peter is termed a presbyter in τ P 5}, 
this is in an epistle which had already explicitly called him an 
apostle (1 P 11), so that the former passage is not a parallel to 
the supposed apostolic origin of notes like 2 and 3 John, where 
the writer simply calls himself 6 πρεσβύτερος. The only important 


480 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


figure of that age who is known to us as ‘the presbyter’ κατ᾽ 
ἐξοχήν is John the presbyter, to whom Papias refers in exactly 
this fashion (cp. A. £. iii. 39. 15, καὶ τοῦτο ὃ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε). 
The early tradition of his authorship has therefore won wide 
acceptance since Jerome’s day; so, ¢g., Erasmus, Grotius, 
Fritzsche, Bretschneider, Wieseler, Credner, Jachmann, Ebrard, 
Renan (iv. pp. 78f.), Forbes, Harnack, Selwyn, von Dobschiitz 
(Urc. 218f.), von Soden (JWT. 445f.), Heinrici (ὅγε. 129f.), 
J. Weiss, Peake, and R. Knopf (ΔΖ. 32f.). The πρεσβύτερος 
of the letters has an antipathy to gnostic speculation and an 
authority over the local churches similar to those reflected in 
Apoc 2-3. It is true that 2 and 3 John do not reproduce 
the distinctive eschatological or chronological tenets of the 
larger work, but in such small notes, written for a special 
purpose, there was no occasion to develop chiliastic opinions or 
any of the specific views promulgated in the Apocalypse. 
Furthermore, it must be noted that in Apoc 2-3 the pres- 
byter is giving each church ἐπιταγὴν κυρίου (1 Co 7%) in the 
name of the Lord, or rather ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου (1 Th 4% cp. 1 Co 77° 
οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὃ κύριος), while in 2 and 3 John he writes xara τὴν 
ἐμὴν γνώμην (in the sense of 1 Co 74). When allowance is 
made for a certain flexibility and versatility, there is little more 
difficulty in regarding 2 and 3 John as written by the author of 
the Apocalypse than in believing that Philemon and Colossians 
were almost contemporary products of Paul’s pen. On the 
other hand, there is no reason to suppose (Schleiermacher, 
Einl. 400; Clemen) that 2 and 3 John were written by different 
hands (2 John after 3 John, according to Clemen). 


The contents and characteristics of the two notes are too occasional to 
support the rival theory that they were pseudonymous, written under the 
name of John the apostle (Baumgarten) or the presbyter (Schmiedel) in order 
to correct the description of him by Papias (Liidemann, /P7., 1879, 565- 
676). Schwartz (Der Tod d. Sihne Zebedai, 42 f., 47 1.}, who, like Harnack, 
rightly sees that they are genuine notes from the same hand of an Asiatic 
presbyter, conjectures (so Wendland) that the author’s name was left out in 
order that his title of ὁ πρεσβύτερος might connect the notes with the more 
famous presbyter John. This would have been a roundabout way of reach- 
ing such an end. Bacon (Fourth Gospel in Research, 1910, 184f.) regards 
all the three ‘Johannine epistles’ as a piece of editorial framework or 
epistolary commendation written by the author of John I-20 in order to give 
currency to the latter, and afterwards used by R, the author of John 21, who 
finally edited the Fourth gospel in its present form. But if any hypothesis 
along these lines had to be worked out, it would be better to connect the 


TWO LETTERS OF JOHN THE PRESBYTER 481 


author of 1 John with the appendix and the final revision of the gospel (see 
below). At all events, the common phraseology of 3 Jn 13 and Jn 21% might 
as well be a reminiscence in the case of the latter (where the application is 
less natural) or the independent use of a catch-word of the ‘ Johannine’ circle. 
For similar reasons, the parallels between 2 and 3 John and the longer homily 
(0 Jn.) do not necessarily involve the literary dependence of the former on the 
latter. In the case of a school or group, like the Asiatic ‘Johannine’ circle, 
the currency of phrases and ideas renders it not impossible that the smaller 
notes were written earlier and independently. 

When the theory that all five ‘Johannine’ writings came from John the 
apostle or John the presbyter is abandoned, and the gospel assigned to a 
different author from the apocalypse, the problem of the three epistles 
remains. Prima facie 1 Jn. goes with the Fourth gospel, either as written 
by the Fourth evangelist or by some like-minded Christian of the same 
group. 2 and 3 John, on the other hand, go more naturally with the 
apocalypse, when the latter is assigned to John the presbyter, in spite of 
traits like the doctrinal antichrist-conception of 2 Jn 7=1 Jn 2% 41", The 
alternative would be to group them with 1 John, assuming that the latter was 
not written by the author of the Fourth gospel. In a problem like this, 
where the data are almost entirely drawn from the internal evidence of the 
literature, no result can claim more than a high degree of probability, but 
the scale appears to turn, upon the whole, in favour of the hypothesis that 
2 and 3 John were written by John the presbyter, —whether before or after he 
wrote the Apocalypse it is not possible to say,—and that they diverge from 
1 Jn. The latter position is more than defensible.* The two notes have 
a distinctiveness of form and even of language which justifies the hypothesis 
that their origin is not that of 1 Jn. and the Fourth gospel. Thus we find 
idiosyncrasies like εἴ τις for the Johannine fay ris, ἐρχόμενος ἡ ἐν σαρκί for 
ἐληλυθὼς ἐν σαρκί, κοινωνεῖν for κοινωνίαν ἔχειν, els οἰκίαν for els τὰ ἴδια, etc. 
The collocation of χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη is not Johannine, and there are other 
resemblances to Pauline language, apart from the apparent acquaintance with 
1 Peter which 2 John betrays. The common denominator of language and 
style between 1 John and 2-3 John is patent. But ‘‘not even all these 
resemblances are conclusive. They are in no case very remarkable idioms or 
phrases. Current peculiarities and turns of language at Ephesus might account 
for them all, so far as they need to be accounted for” (Selwyn, p. 133). 


ὃ 5. Characteristics and style.—The notes reveal the presbyter 
journeying (so Clem. Alex. guzs diues salu. 42) to and fro among 
his churches, and writing letters, now and then, to serve as 
temporary guides till he could arrive in person. He has a 
coterie of like-minded Christians (this is the force of the we in 
910. 12, cp. 1 Jn 116 4% 14), in whose name as well as in his 


* The difference of authorship between 1 Jn and 2-3 Jn is recognised by 
Credner (Zim/. i. 692 f.), Ebrard (359 f.), Selwyn (135 f.), J. Réville (e guatr. 
Evangile, 49f.), Schwartz, and Jiilicher (Zin/. 218-216), especially. 

¢ Cp. Apoc 18=2 Jn7. The contrast between this and 1 Jn 4? is equalled 
by the difference between 3 Jn" and 1 Jn 4 ™, 


31 


482 HOMILIES AND PASTORALS 


own he speaks with authority, and ‘he truth (3 Jn *5) is simply 
a life answering to the apostolic standard laid down by these 
authorities. Thus 2 John is a specimen of the excommunicating 
letters occasionally dispatched by early Christian leaders to a 
community (cp. 1 Co 5%), while 3 John is nearer to ἐπιστολαὶ 
συστατικαί (cp. 2 Co 31) like Ro 16%, 


In 3 Jn?, as the use of ἀγαπήτος for φίλτατος might be thought ‘‘ Schén- 
rednerei und nicht vom besten Geschmacke,” the writer added ὅν... ἀληθείᾳ 
(U. von W. Moellendorff, pp. 529f.). In v.? Rendel Harris (Zx.° viii. 
167) proposes to correct περὶ to πρὸ, after the common formula in the papyri. 
The latter bring out the epistolary character of the notes. Thus, ¢.g., for κυρία 
as a term of affectionate courtesy, cp. 4g. Oxyrhynchus Fapyrt, iv. 2431. 
(Βεροῦτι τῇ κυρίᾳ μου) ; for καλῶς ποιεῖν and the idea of 3 Jn *,* the papyrus- 
note quoted in Witkowski’s Zpistule Private Grace (1906), 5f. (καλῶς 
ποιεῖς εἰ Eppwoa καὶ τὰ λοιπά σοι κατὰ γνώμην ἐστίν) and the second-century 
letter (Berliner Griechische Urkunden, ii. 84f., πρὸ μὲν πάντων εὔχομαι σε 
ὑγιαίνειν κτλ.). The phrase in the fourth-century Christian letter of Justinus 
to Papnuthius (cp. Deissmann’s Licht vom Osten,-151 f.), ἵνα οὖν μὴ πολλὰ 
γράφω καὶ φλυραρήσω, may be an unconscious reminiscence of 3 Jn 5 (cp. 1). 


§ 6. Date.—Those who ascribe the notes to John the apostle 
date them anywhere between 80 and Ioo, or even earlier (after 
Neronic persecution, Chapman). Otherwise, on the hypothesis 
of their composition by John the presbyter or some anonymous 
‘Johannine’ disciple, they may fall later, before 110 (Harnack), 
between A.D. 125 and 130 (Pfleiderer, Ure. ii. 450), between 
130 and 140 (Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, Zin/. 682-694; Weiz- 
sicker’s AA. ii. 239, and Briickner, Chron. 302f.), or even 
ἃ AD. 155 (Kreyenbihl, Zuglm der Wahrheit, 1.131 f.). Their 
lack of definite allusions to the gnostic systems and their 
attitude towards the ecclesiastical organisation of the church, 
however, are best met by a date not later than the opening 
decades of the second century (cp. J. Réville, Les origines de 
Pépiscopat, i. 204-208), when the organisation was being con- 
solidated. A period somewhat earlier than the Didaché and 
Ignatius would suit most of the requirements of these letters. 
Their similarity of tone suggests that they were written shortly 
after one another, but they stir rather than satisfy the curiosity of 
the historian. In the dark, wide bay of early Christian life, they 
glimmer like two adjacent specks of light, indicating some place 
where Asiatics dwell and work, unknown to passers-by upon the 
high seas. 

* J. R. Harris (Zxp.° viii. 166 f.). 


CHAPTER IV. 
THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN. 


LITERATURE. —(a) Editions—although the earliest Greek commentaries 
(e.g. by Melito and Hippolytus) have been lost, those of Oecumenius (cp. 
Diekamp in SBBA., 1901, 1046f.), Andreas (ed. Sylburg, 1596), and 
Arethas survive, as well as Latin commentaries by Victorinus of Pettau (cp. 
Ehrhard, ACL. 484f.), Tyconius, Primasius, Apringius (ed. Férotin, Paris, 
1900), Beatus (cp. H. L. Ramsay, Le Commentazre de l’apoc. par Beatus, 
1900), etc., and the Syriac work of Barsalibi (cp. Gwynn in Hermathena, 
vi.—vii.). Haymo, Joachim, and Rupert of Deutz are the best representatives 
of the medizeval school. The sixteenth century threw up the Aznorationes of 
Erasmus (1516), with the commentaries of T. Bibliander (Basle, 1569), 
F. Ribeira (Salamanca, 1591), and J. Winckelmann (Frankfort, 1590) ; the 
seventeenth added A. Salmeron’s Pre/udia (Cologne, 1614), De Dieu’s 
Animadversiones (1646), and the Cogztationes of Cocceius (Amsterdam, 1673), 
with the commentaries of Brightman (London, 1616), D. Paraeus (Heidelberg, 
1618), Mariana (1619), Cornelius ἃ Lapide (1627), H. Grotius (Annota- 
tiones, Paris, 1644), and Hammond (London, 1653); while the eighteenth? 
produced Vitringa’s ᾿Ανάκρισις (1721)*, Abauzit’s Discourse, Hist. and 
Critical (London and Geneva, 1730), and the commentaries of Schlur- 
mann (1722), Bengel (1740), Wetstein (Amsterdam, 1752), and Eichhorn 
(Gottingen, 1791). The literature of the nineteenth century includes the 
editions of Woodhouse (London, 1805); P. J. S. Vogel (Commentationes Vil. 
de apoc. Joh., Erlangen, 1811-6); Ewald (Commenturius . . . exegeticus 
et criticus, 1828); A. L. Matthaei (Gottingen, 1828); Ziillig (Stuttgart, 
1834-40); S. P. Tregelles (1844); Moses Stuart? (1845)*; de Wette 
(1848) ; Ebrard (— Olshausen, 1853); C. Stern (1854); C. Wordsworth 
(London, 1860); E. W. Hengstenberg? (Berlin, 1861-2); J. Glasgow 
(Edinburgh, 1862); G. Volkmar (Ziirich, 1862); Alford? (1862); Wolf 
(Innsbruck, 1870); H. Kienlen (1870); Kliefoth (1874); J. L. Fuller 
(1874) ; Hofmann (1874); A. Bisping (Miinster, 1876); C. H. A. Burger 
(1877); J. P. Lange? (1878, Eng. tr. 1874) ; E. Reuss (1878); Garrat 3 
(1878); 5. Lee (Speaker's Comm. 1881); Waller (Freiburg, 1882); Ph. 
Krementz (Freiburg, 1883); Beck (1885); Diisterdieck* (— Meyer, 
1887); Kiibel (— Zockler, 1888); W. Milligan (London, 1889); Randall 
(Pulpit Comm. 1890); F. S. Tiefenthal (1892); W. H. Simcox (CG7. 
1893), and Lindenbein? (1895). More recent works include the editions of 


1 For the cloud of homiletical and prophetical books, see Ellictt’s Hore 
Apocalyptica, iv. 275 ἴ. i 
3 


484 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN. 


E. W. Benson (London, 1900) ; B. Weiss? (1902); C. A. Scott (CB. 1902); 
A. Crampon (L’ Afocalypse de S. Jean, traduite et annotée, Tournai, 1904) ; 
Th. Calmes (Paris, 1905)*; F. Weidner (Annotations, New York, 1906) ; 
W. Bousset? (— Meyer, 1906); H. B. Swete? (1907)*; H. P. Forbes 
(New York, 1907); F. J. A. Hort (posthumous fragment, 1907); J. Weiss? 
(SNM7. 1907); Holtzmann-Bauer (HC.° 1908)* ; J. M. S. Baljon (Utrecht, 
1908); Moffatt (5:67. 1910) ; E. C. S. Gibson (London, 1910) ; A. Ramsay 
(Westminster NT, 1910). 

(4) Studies—({i.) general :—Semler’s Neue Untersuchungen (Halle, 1776) ; 
A. Tilloch’s Déssertatzons Introductory to Study of the Language, Structure, 
and Contents of the Apocalypse (London, 1823); Liicke’s Versuch einer 
vollstandigen LEinleitung in die Offenbarung Johannts? (1852)*; E. 
Boehmer, aber Verfasser und Abfassungszett d. johan. Apokalypse und sur 
bibl. Typik (1855); H. J. Graber, Versuch einer histor. Erklarung... 
(Heidelberg, 1857); Meijboom, De Ojenbaring (1863); Manchot, Die 
Offenbarung Johannes (1869); Farrar, Early Days of Christianity (1882, 
ch. xxviii.) ; E. Havet, Le Chréstianisme et ses origines (1838, iv. pp. 314f.) ; 
Chauffard, L’apocalypse et son interprétation historique (1888); Lohr, die 
Offenbarung Johannes (1890); Milligan, Déscusstons on the Apocalypse 
(London, 1893); S. Davidson, Outlines of a Comm. on Revelation (1894) ; 
H. Berg, Zhe Drama of the Apocalypse (London, 1894); W. Bousset (5 δὲ. 
194-212) ; Schmiedel (Zz. 2514-2518); F. C. Porter (Hastings’ 2.8. iv. 
239-266)*; E. C. Selwyn, Zhe Christian Prophets and the Prophetic 
Apocalypse (1900); Baljon (JZ. pp. 241-265); Wernle’s Ure. i, (Eng. 
tr.) pp. 360f.; G. H. Gilbert, Zhe First Interpreters of Jesus (1901), 
pp. 332f.; F.C. Porter, Messages of Apoc. Writers * (1901), pp. 169-296; 
W. M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches* (1904); G. Linder, ate 
Offenbarung des Johannes aufgeschlossen (1905); Calmes, L’apoc. devant la 
tradition et devant la critique? (1907); E. A. Abbott (Dzat, 2942, 2998, 
8 11)*; J. Bonnet’s Zclaircissement de [apocalypse (1908); A. Reymond’s 
Explication (Lausanne, 1908); C. W. Votaw (8261, World, 1907, 32-40, 
290-299, 1908, 39-50, 314-328); J. J. Scott, Lectures on the Apocalypse 
(1909); A. V. Green, Zhe Ephesian Canonical Writings (1910), pp. 164- 
246; G. T. Jowett, The Apocalypse of St. John (1910). (ii.) on special points : 
(a) religious ideas:—Herder’s Maran Atha (Riga, 1779); A. Schneider’s 
Essai sur les idées de Capocalypse touchant la personne de Christ (Strassburg, 
1855); Bleek’s Vorlesungen (ed. Hossbach, 1862; Eng. tr. 1874); 
Gebhardt’s Lehrbegriff der Apocalypse (1873, Eng. tr.); Hoekstra’s ‘de 
Christologie d. Apok.’ (77., 1869, 363-402); Briggs, Messiah of the 
Apostles (pp. 285-461); Cone, Zhe Gospel and sts earliest Interpreters 
(1893), pp. 346-361; M. 5. Terry (JBZ., 1895, 91-100); Hofmann’s 
Vorlesungen (ed. Lorenz, 1896); Trench, Comm. on Epp. to Seven 
Churches? (1897)*; J. O. Michael, Dse Gottesherrschaft als lettender 
Grundgedanke in der Offenbarung des Johannes (Leipzig, 1903); V. Ermoni, 
‘Ja cristologia dell’ Apocalisse’ (Riv. d. Scienz. Teol., 1908, 538-552) ; 
A. 8. Peake, ‘ The Person of Christ in the Revelation of John’ (A/amsefield 
College Essays, 1909, 89-109) *. (ὁ) text, etc. :—C. F. Matthaei’s Apocalypsis 
Joh. grace et latine ex codicibus nunguam antea examinatis (Riga, 1785); 
A. Birch, Varia kectiones ad textum Apoc. (Copenhagen, 1800); F, 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 485 


Delitzsch, Hasdschrifie Funde, i. (‘die erasmischen Entstellungen des 
Textes d. Apokaiypse nachegewiesen aus dem verloren geglaubten codex 
Reuchlins’) 1861; Haussleiter’s ed. of Primasius in Zahn’s Forschungen 
zur Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons (iv. 1-224)*; B. Weiss, ‘die Joh.- 
Apokalypse, textkritische Unterschungen und Textherstell.” (7U. vil. 1, 
1891) ἢ; Goussen’s Zheolog. Studia (fasciculus i., ‘Apoc. S. Joh. apostoli 
versio sahidica’); ἃ. H. Gilbert (8767. World, 1895, 29f., 114f., ‘The 
Originality of the Apocalypse’); Gwynn, Zhe Apocalypse of S. John in 
Syriac (1897)*; J. H. Barbour (&2d/. World, 1899, 316-325, ‘The 
structure and teaching of the Apocalypse’); T. C. Laughlin, Zhe Solectsms 
of the Apocalypse (Princeton, 1902); F. Palmer, Zhe Drama of the Apoc- 
alypse (1903); Dclaporte, Fragments Sahidiques du NT Apokalypse (Paris, 
1906); Ε΄. C. Conybeare, The Armenian Text of Revelation (London, 1907 ; 
Text and Translation Society). 


§ 1. Outline and contents—(Cp. F. Palmer, Zhe Drama of 
the Apocalypse, 1905, and Swete, pp. xxix—xli.) 


ΤΣ «8 prologue. 


ΤῊΝ vision of heaven, with John’s commission to write. to seven 
Asiatic churches! at 
21-33 Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, 
and Laodicea. 
41-54 vision of heaven, introducing 
6h the plagues of the seven seals— 


(1) the white horse (Parthian raid), 
(2) the red horse (war and bloodshed), 
(3) the black horse (famine), 
(4) the livid horse (pestilence), 
(5) the souls of the slain, 
(6) the earthquake and eclipse (the last Day, panic of 
kings, etc.). 
Intermezzo :— 


1-8 sealing of redeemed on earth, 
zeit bliss of redeemed in heaven. 
3} (7) the silence (ominous pause for half an hour). 

82-5 vision of heaven, an episode of angels, introducing 
86-οἱ the plagues of the seven trumpets— 
(1) earth (shower of bloody hail and fire), 
(2) sea (volcanic bomb), 
(3) streams and springs (poisoned by torch-like meteor), 
(4) eclipse (partial), 
(5) demonic locusts, 
(6) demonic cavalry (Parthian invasion). 
Intermezzo :— 
ΤΟΙ episode of angels and a booklet, 
ΧΙ the apocalypse of the two μαρτύρες. 


1Cp. G. Lampakis, Ol ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως, ἤτοι ἱστορία, ἐρείπια, 
μνημαῖα καὶ νῦν κατάστασις τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν τῆς ᾿Ασίας (Athens, 1900). 


486 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


1115: (7) voices and visions in heaven, introducing 
ra the dragon or Satan, war in heaven, 
Seer ne 
131-10. 11:18 ΤῊ Beast from the sea, the dragon 5 vice regent \ war wotenrae 
the Beast from the land, the vice-regent’s ally. J 
Intermezzo :— 


1} Ὁ bliss of redeemed in heaven, 
rae; episode of angels and doom on earth 
rts vision of heaven, an episode of angels, introducing 
ΤΟΝ the plagues of the seven bowls—on 
(1) earth (adherents of Cczesar-cult punished by noisome 
ulcers), 


(2) sea (poisoned by coagulated blood) 
(3) streams and springs (turned into blood), 
(4) sun (scorching heat), 
(5) throne of the Beast (darkness), 
(6) Euphrates (dried up to facilitate Parthian invasion), 
(7) air (storm and cosmic collapse). 
visions of doom on 


{7}. (az) the realm of the Beast (Rome)— 

Nesey a taunt-song of doom on earth ® 

TQ) a triumph-song in heaven— 

ΤΟΝ (4) the Beast and his allies, 

σγο ετε (c) the dragon or Satan and his adherents. { 
visions of 

ΘΙ (a) the great white throne, 

211s (4) the new heaven and earth, 

219-22° (c) the new Jerusalem. 

ope epilogue. 


The outcome of the opening vision (1%) is a commission 
to write charges to seven churches of Western Asia Minor (2-3). 
As the Roman emperors addressed letters to the Asiatic cities 
or corporations (the inscriptions mention at least six to Ephesus, 
seven to Pergamos, three to Smyrna, etc.; cp. Deissmann’s 
Licht vom Osten, pp. 274 f.), so Jesus the heavenly κύριος com- 
municates through John his instructions to these Christian 


* This magnificent dramatic lyric, after a short prelude (νν.} 8), and a 
stanza of triumph ove: the oppressor’s fall (vv.*8), describes the wail of kings 
(vv.2!), merchants (vv. 16), and seafaring men (νν. 17.139), like Ezekiel’s 
well-known doom-song over the fall of Tyre. The closing lines (vv.?!“) 
vividly portray the sudden, violent, and irrevocable doom of the grandeur 
that was Rome. 

+The author welds together here the two mythological traditions of (a) 
a temporary restraint of the evil power, and (4) a temporary messianic reign, 
using the latter in order to provide a special reward for the martyrs. This 
re-arrangement obliges him to connect, though vaguely, the Gog and Magog 
legend with the recrudescence of Satan, and also to postpone the resurrection 
till after the messianic interval, 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 487 


communities.* The scene then changes (47). The churches 
and their angels give place to a fresh tableau of the heavenly 
penetralia (4-5). The prophet is admitted to the celestial 
presence-chamber, where Christ as the redeemer of his people 
receives the book of Doom,f which he alone can open and 
read. At the breaking of each of the seven seals of this roll, some 
fresh woe is chronicled (6), the sixth being the great day of 
God’s wrath. Here the writer relieves the strain by a consoling 
rhapsody (718: 917), which lifts the eyes of the faithful over the 
foam and rocks of the rapids in which they were tossing to the 
quiet, sunlit pool of heavenly bliss beyond. The seventh woe 
drifts over, however, into a fresh cycle of catastrophes, introduced 
by trumpet-peals from seven angels (8-9). The sixth of these 
is also followed by an entracte (10!-1118) of considerable length, 
in which the personality of the seer emerges on earth instead of 
(since 41) in heaven. A colossal jin, bestriding earth and sea, 
gives him a βιβλαρίδιον whose enigmatic contents he has to 
digest. The fresh series of visions which now opens is con- 
cerned with the two protagonists of the final struggle, the 
messiah of Satan or the Beast and the messiah of God. The 
former is introduced in a foiled attack of antichrist on messiah’s 
forerunners (111), and then in an equally futile onset of the 
dragon or Satan on messiah himself (12). The Roman empire, 
as Satan’s delegate on earth, then appears on the scene (13). 
Here is the crisis of the world! The imperial power, with its 
demand for worship, is confronted by an undaunted nucleus of 
Christians, and the prophet breaks off, in characteristically 
proleptic fashion, to paint their final bliss (141-5) and the corre- 


“The epistolary form into which the Apocalypse is thrown is merely 
intended (cp. Zahn, //V7. iii. 300) to show that it was meant for circulation 
primarily in the churches of Asia Minor. 

+ In the form of a papyrus-roll or ὀπισθόγραφον (cp. Blau’s Studien zur 
Alt-Heb. Buchwesen, 36 f. ; E. Maude Thompson’s Palzography, 56-60, and 
E. J. Goodspeed, /BL., 1903, 70-74), not of a codex in book-form (so 
recently Zahn). 

t Even here the first Beast (z.e. the Roman empire) is identified with one 
of its heads (or emperors), z.e. Nero, who is a travesty (13°*= 58) of the Lamb 
(his resurrection heralding the final conflict of God and the pagan power). 
Hence, whatever the number 666 originally meant as a naive parody of the 
sacred number seven, the prophet cryptically and cabbalistically identifies it 
with the human personality of Nero (cp. the recent discussion by Corssen, 
ZNW., 1902, 236 f., 1903, 264 f., and E. Vischer, zzd., 1903, 167 f., 1904, 
74 f.), using the favourite methods of gematria and isopsephia. 


488 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


sponding tortures reserved for their impious opponents (14°™). 
At this point the kaleidoscope of the visions again shifts 
abruptly. In a cycle of horrors, in which the element of 
fantasy becomes more ornate than ever, seven angels drench 
the world of men and nature with the anger of God, which can 
no longer be repressed (15-16). The impenitence of the world 
reaches its climax in the policy of the Roman city and empire, 
and the prophet describes in rapid succession the doom of 
Rome (17-18) at the hands of the Beast and his allies, the 
horrible fate of the latter (19), and finally the overthrow of the 
Satan who had instigated both (201). The general resurrec- 
tion and judgment which follow (201-15) usher in the closing 
description of the heavenly bliss rescued for the saints (211225), 
which the poet describes in genuine Semitic fashion. From the 
smoke and pain and heat of the preceding scenes it is a relief 
to pass into the clear, clean atmosphere of the eternal morning 
where the breath of heaven is sweet and the vast city of God 
sparkles like a diamond in the radiance of his presence. The 
epilogue (22°21!) sounds the two characteristic mo/ifs of the 
book, viz. its vital importance as an inspired scripture, and the 
nearness of the end which it predicts. 

Underneath this general unity of conception and aim, how- 
ever, there are incongruities and vacillations in the symbolism, 
isolated allusions, unrelated predictions left side by side, and 
episodical passages, which in several cases denote planes of 
religious feeling and atmospheres of historical outlook, differing 
not simply from their context but from one another. These 
features, together with the absence or comparative absence of 
distinctively Christian traits from one or two sections, the 
variations of christological climate, the juxtaposition of disparate 
materials, and the awkward transitions at one point after another, 
show that source-criticism of some kind is necessary in order 
to account for the literary and psychological data. John’s 
apocalypse, like most of its class, is composite (see above, p. 40). 

§ 2. Somrce-criticism. — Surveys by H. J. Holtzmann (/P7., 1891, 
520 f.), Baldensperger (Z7X., 1894, 232-250), A. Hirscht (Die Apokalypse 
und thre neueste Kritik, 1895), Barton (A/7., 1898, 776-801), Moffatt 
(HN7. pp. 677-689, and Exp. 1909, March), A. Meyer (7'X., 1897, 47 f., 
gi f., 1907, 126f., 182 f.), Porter (Hastings’ D&B. iv. 242 f.), Bousset 
(pp. 108-129); Holtzmann-Bauer (HC. iv. 390-394); adverse discussions 
by Bovon (Revue de théologie et philosophie, 1887, 329-362), Beyschlag (SK., 
1888, 102-138), Diisterdieck (GGA., 1889, 554 f.), E. C. Moore (JBL 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 489 


18y1, 20-43), Milligan (Discussions on the Apocalypse, 1893, 27-74), 
M. 5. Terry (/BL., 1834, 91-100), M. Kohlhofer (Die Einhett des 
Apokalypse, 1902), and Jacquier (V7, iv. 362-375). 

The main analyses of the book may be classified as follows :— 

(a) The compilation-hypothesis posits several fairly independent sources, 
which have been pieced together by a redactor or by successive redactors, 
Most critics of this school find two Jewish sources. So, ¢.g., G. J. Weyland 
(77., 1886, 454-470; Omwerkings en comptlatie-hypothesen, etc., 1888) 
saw Christian additions (¢. A.D. 100) in 1159: 11. 18 20 2.5 56-14 (61. 16) 918 107 
1180. 19 poll. 175. 1.1-δ 1 ς1. 6:8 161-12. 18 Wa, 21 pols oi-lW. τὸν yp7a, 12-13. 16-21, 
and two sources in δὲ (A.D. 81)=1, 4!-5° 6-8, 9, r1'4!8 1458 155 1617-20 7414-20 
Wo, ΤΟΙ 910 422 Ae. (AD. ΘΟΝΞΞΊΟ ΤΙ 12.107. ΤῊ το 10 Ὁ 1612-16 
ete. yg'-21 201-218; Ménégoz (Annales de Bibliogr. Théologie, 1888, pp. 
41-45), and O. Holtzmann (in Stade’s Geschichte /sraels, ii. 658 f.), like K. 
Kohler (Jewish Encyclopadia, x. 390 f.), also postulate two Jewish sources ; 
but after Weyland this view has been best put by Eugen de Faye (/s 
Apocalypse Juives, 1892, pp. 171 f.), who, working along the lines indicated 
by Spitta, distinguishes an anonymous Jewish apocalypse in 71-8 85- 05] 10!* 
BT pela. 19.12.13, 14{-8) 6-11 7618-2 zoM-16. 17-21 yol-% 7-18 971-6 written 
during the stormy reign of Caligula; and another, also of Jewish origin, in 
το. 35. BIL 111-18. 150-18 y 414-20 ye 1612. 178. 21 1.7. 108 219-27 2218 written close 
to A.D. 70. He correctly sees that 4-6 are inseparable from 1-3, containing 
several allusions to the latter and partaking of the same Christian spirit and 
style. Three * Jewish sources are postulated by P. W. Schmidt (Anmer- 
kungen tiber die Komposttion der Offenbarung Johannes, 1891); one in 
4'-78, another in 87-11! (10!-1118 being an insertion), and a third in 1118195 
21}-22°, with an anti-Pauline Christian author in 2-3 and subsequent 
(Trajanic) editorial work in 1 and 225, This complicated scheme was 
no improvement upon Spitta’s triple division (Die Offenbarung des Johannes 
untersucht, 1889); into an original apocalypse of John Mark, c. A.D. 62 
(= 146 9-19 2-3. 41} «114 61-17 Bl 79-18 yQ%-10 298. 10f. 20-21) in which the 
Christian redactor under Trajan, besides numerous additions (e.g. 11% 18. 
20 27. 11. 17, 26-29 36-6, 12-18, 211. 7 39-10 y 42b-B. 110-12 y77-18 04-7 212-4. Gb-8 p29. 14-16, 
1Sb-2%0), incorporated not only an apocalypse of 63 B.c. (=bulk of 10-11, 
141416. 18-20 52-6. 8 161-12. 17. 321 yyI-6 7Zl-23 yol-% 5-8 219-27 221-3. 15) but a 
Caligula-apocalypse of A.D. 40 (=7'® 87-18 gh) το δ: 5-7 1715. 19 7921. δ. 7-10. 
12-18 731-8. 11-18 y 41-2. 4-7, 9-11α 718-14. 16-17b. 18-20 1.011-14. 16-21 20γ1-ϑ, 8-15 211. 5-6), 
J. Weiss (Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 1904) makes one of his two sources 
Jewish, viz., a composite prophetic work (c. A.D. 70)=10, r1}"!8 y2!-6. 14-17 
(137) 15-19, 21**"; this was incorporated with the original apocalypse of 
John the presbyter (A.D. 65-70) = 14°® (7-8 9°19 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, 9, 127)? 1211-16 
{||} 125 = 201 155 Ue 2714 2286.) 50. hy a) Domitianic’ redactor or’ editor; 
who desired to rally the Asiatic churches during the Flavian crisis. Bruston 


* W. Briickner (Protest. Kirchenzettung, 1896, 653 f., 680 f., 703 f., 733 f.) 
went one better ; the Lamb, in one of his four Jewish sources, is even held to 
have denoted the people of Israel. C. Rauch (die Uffendarung des Johannes, 
Haarlem, 1894) had already discovered five behind a Jewish apocalypse of 
A.D. 62, 


490 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


again (δε ἧδε sur Daniel et [ Apocalypse, 1908, summarising his previous 
studies) holds that both of his (Hebrew) sources were Christian, the one 
(Neronic)= rol 8-11. 1 11-18.. 19 721. 12} 1.411 1524 1618-18. 190 y71_yo3 1011- 2015, 
the other (cp. AZQA., 1908, 171-187; a posthumous work of John the 
apostle, composed by a disciple) = 14 2-3, 4᾽--τοὶ το 11/419 1428 12-18 ot 10 
21)-8 228-18. 16-17. 20-21; the editor dove-tailed the one into the other and 
made alterations in both as well as additions. Vdlter’s latest analysis (Dee 
Offenbarung des Johannis, neu untersucht und erblirt, 1904) approximates 
to this type of criticism, by postulating a Christian apocalypse of John Mark 
(c. A.D. 65), and an apocaly)se of Cerinthus (as early as A.D. 70,=10'!! 
172-18 zyyt-!8 121-16 755-6. 8 761-21 101}--228), which were successively edited 
under Trajan and Hadrian. 

(4) A simplified variant of the compilation-theory is the Jewish and 
Christian hypothesis which posits only one Jewish original. Thus Vischer 
(‘ Die Offenbarung Johannes eine jiidische Apk. in christlicher Bearbeitung,’ 
TU. ii. 3, 1886, second ed. 1805) traced a Christian editor’s hand (e.g. in 
11322 8M 79-17 χγϑὺ 1211 739-10 χ..1:8. 215 7619 1.714. γ0310 gosb-ba. 6 2150-8. 
14b 228-21, and the Lamb-passages) working on an earlier Aramaic Jewish 
apocalypse of the seventh decade; similarly Harnack, Rovers (77., 1887, 
616-634), Martineau (Seat of Authority, 217-227), an anonymous writer in 
Zeitschrift fiir alt. Wiss. (1887), 167 f. ; 5. Davidson (77. ii. 126 f. ; Aramaic 
Jewish apocalypse translated and edited), and von Soden (1177. 338 ἢ. : 
Jewish apocalypse, ‘ written between May and August of the year A.D. 70.’= 
$!_225, edited and altered by John the presbyter under Domitian, with a 
few later editorial notes from another hand in 1'* etc.). 

(c) According to the incorporation-theory, the Apoc. is substantially a 
literary unity, but it incorporates several earlier fragments of Jewish or 
Jewish Christian origin. These are variously disentangled, but there is a 
substantial agreement upon most. According to Weizsacker (4A. ii. 173 f.), 
who first propounded the hypothesis, they lie in γ᾽ δ 11)-!* 12-13, and 17. 
Sabatier (Les origines littératres et la composition de ἢ Apocalypse, 1888) 
found Jewish fragments in 11} 18 12-13, 14%“? 16'%!# 16 χγγὶ--τοῦ r9!!-20"” 
219-225; Schon (L’origine de [ Apocalypse, 1887), less extensively in 111-18 
12!-% 13-17 and 18; and Pfleiderer (Ure. ii. 281 f.) in 11-14, 17-18, and 211 
22°, This line of criticism is followed by Bousset, Jiilicher (Zz#/. § 22), 
C. A. Scott, F. C. Porter, McGiffert (4A. 633 f.), A. Meyer, E. A. Abbott, 
Baljon (77. 241-265), Wrede (Zutstehung der Schriften des NT, 103-1C4), 
Schmiedel, and Ca!mes, amongst others ; of all the theories it does most 
justice to the linguistic unity on the one hand, and to the disparate phenomena 
of the text upon the other. 

C. A. Briggs (Jessiah of the Apostles, 285-461) detects a fourfold editing, 
with redactional matter, ¢.g., in 11 and 22.8.19. of earlier (mainly Hebrew) 
apocalypses, written prior to A.D. 70, the latest being a special source written 
by the apostle John (including 11-3). According to a more recent theory 
(B. W. Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, 1910, 157 f.), 1-3 and 
22-41 are simply a prologue and epilogue added by some Ephesian editor to 
invest the Palestinian apocalypse with apostolic authority ; but they do not 
claim apostolic authority, and their links with 4-227 are not broken so easily. 
Nor is the theory that John’s early martyrdom underlies 117°” at all plausible 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 49! 


The seven cities or their churches disappear with 4)", and the bulk of the 
apocalypse is certainly a tale of two cities, Babylon and Jerusalem; but 
these are not played off against one another, and the special phenomena 
of 4!-227 are not sufficient to disprove identity of authorship in 1-3 +228"! 
and 4'-227, Bacon finds traces of the Ephesian editor in 4° 56 79-17 o! 114 8 
125 10 175 1. 59" etc: 

Barth (2 2»). 250-276) explains the different time-allusions in the book 
by the simpler expedient (after Grotius) of conjecturing that John revised and 
reissued, under Domitian, an apocalypse which he had already (shortly before 
70) composed for the smaller audience of the Asiatic churches. H. B. 
Workman (Persecution in the Early Church, p. 46, cp. pp. 355-358) more 
ingeniously proposes to reconcile the conflicting evidence for the date by 
suggesting that ‘‘ while the apocalypse was mainly written in or about 69 
(certainly before 70), the opportunities for a convict in Patmos to transmit 
such a work to the mainland were few,—the letters to the seven churches 
would be short notes sent separately, easily concealed,—and consequently the 
publication of the work as a whole in Asia was not until 95 or so,” 

Wellhausen’s analysis (Analyse der Offenbarung Johannis, 1907) is more 
complex. The Domitianic author, he argues, edited even the letters to the 
seven churches (¢.g. in the promises of 27> etc. and 210+ 23-28 8b. 10-12, 20-21), 
as well as the seven seals (inserting, ¢.g., 7, 8°>-4, 71.-8 being a separate frag- 
ment) and the seven trumpets (in 9!% 390-21) changed the original Christ of 
107 “6 into an angel, and incorporated two Jewish fragments from A.D. 70 in 
1122 (oracle of Zealots) and 12 (Pharisaic, editorial touches in 12!-!? and 
elsewhere), besides doubling the original single witness (=Flijah) of the 
Jewish source in 11°18, and the original single Beast of the Jewish source in 
13. Further editorial touches are detected in 157% and in the present text 
of the seven bowls source (¢.g. in 16°17 13-16) ; in 17, as in 12, two separate 
Jewish sources have been pieced together; the brushwork of editorial 
Christian touches is found in 18? % 1912-18; the Jewish source in 201-15 
has been coloured by the Christian editor in 204: 10. 12. 14 ; 211. 22 is certainly 
composed by the apocalyptist himself, but 2218! like 11-3, must be the work 
of some further redactor, for whom the fourth evangelist was the apocalyptist. 
The latter wrote under Domitian. 


Overprecision and arbitrary canons of literary analysis have 
handicapped most of these theories. ‘Differences of style 
undoubtedly exist, in different portions of Revelation, but not 
a tenth part of such differences as separate Zhe Zemfest from 
Richard 1. In contrast with all the other books of the NT, 
the Apocalypse of John is written in a language of its own, a 
blend of Hebraic Greek and vernacular Greek, defiant of 
grammar. Its peculiarities stamp the whole work—barring a 
few phrases—as not only conceived by one mind but also 
written by one hand” (E. A. Abbott, Déat. 2942,* xxiii. ; cp. 
Gallois, RB., 1894, 357-374). This sense of stylistic unity tells 
against most forms of the compilation-hypothesis, for example, 


492 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


but it does not rule out the view that, while the Apocalypse is 
neither a literary conglomerate nor a mechanical blend of earlier 
shreds and patches, it contains not simply divergent traditions 
but earlier sources which have been worked over for the prophet’s 
own purpose. He has wrought as an editor no less than asa 
transcriber of personal visions. In some parts the Apocalypse is 
not a vision at all. It represents not only the literary embellish- 
ment of what the writer remembered he had seen in moments of 
ecstasy, but the re-setting of fragments which were current and 
honoured in the circle where he moved. 

One further consideration falls to be noted at this point. 
The unsatisfactory results of the source-criticism of the Apocalypse 
have not simply been due, as in the case of Acts, to a prosaic - 
Western and ultra-rigid conception of what an early Oriental 
author could have written. There are other causes. (i.) The 
criterion of Jewish or Christian is hazardous in a book which 
deals with eschatology, where no primitive Christian could work 
without drawing upon Jewish traditions, in themselves neither 
stereotyped nor homogeneous. Though a given passage may 
not be couched in Christian language, it does not necessarily 
come from a Jewish pen. The Jewish nucleus of the Apocalypse, 
e.g., cannot be disentangled by the naive expedient of cutting out 
all references to the Lamb, etc. A closer examination of its 
contents reveals omissions which prove unmistakably a non- 
Jewish origin; ¢.g. the lack of any reference to the prevalent 
category of the ‘wo q@ons, the return of the ten tribes, the con- 
temporary Jewish wail over the cessation of sacrifice after A.D. 70 
(cp. Apoc. Bar 10!), the expiatory function of the martyrs’ 
death, and the law (cp. Charles’ note on Apoc. Bar 155).  (ii.) 
Inconsequence of a certain kind is one of the psychological 
phenomena of visions, and (iii.) any transcript of these, 
especially by a poetic nature, is certain to reflect the changes 
which come over the spirit of religious as well as of other dreams. 
(iv.) Many of the inconsistencies and incongruities were due to 
the fact that the author, as an apocalyptist, inherited old tradi- 
tions which not only had passed through various phases before 
they reached him, but had to be re-adapted to a later situation. 
The last-named consideration was first stated by Gunkel in his 
epoch-making Schépfung und Chaos (1895), and ever since then 
the principles of the religionsgeschichtliche school have been 
recognised in the best literary criticism of the Apocalypse with 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 493 


excellent results. Gunkel’s work did not supersede analytic literary 
criticism here any more than in the case of Genesis ; it rather 
corrected an ultra-literary bias. He himself failed to allow 
enough for the references to contemporary history (cp. Well- 
hausen’s critique in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vi. 215 f.); he made 
extravagant claims for the Babylonian origin of the traditions 
(especially in ch..12); and, at first, he failed to allow enough 
for the element of genuine prophetic vision and experiences in 
the book. But it is only in the light of the principles which he 
laid bare that a due estimate can be formed of the seer’s method 
in dealing with his material. 

The traditions employed in the book reach back primarily to OT 
prophecies like those of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah ; several of the visions 
imply that the seer had been brooding over such scriptures. But neither 
their shape nor their content is explicable apart from a wider use of such 
traditions as were current in pseudepigrapha like Enoch and books of the 
later Judaism like Tobit and the Psalter of Solomon. There are also 
elements akin to Zoroastrian, Babylonian, Greek, and Egyptian eschatology 
and cosmology which were not altogether derived indirectly from the 
apocalyptic channels of the later Judaism. For the mythological back- 
ground, ¢g., of 6, cp. H. Gressmann in Deutsche Literatursettung 
(1907), 2252f., and M. W. Miiller in ZNW. (1907) 290-316; for the 
astrological basis of the Parthian tradition in 9%, Fries in Jahrb. fir 
die klass. Alterthum. (1902) 705f.; for the mythological basis of 12, 
Calmes (RB., 1903, 52-68) and B. Allo (RB., 1910, 509-554), Cheyne’s 
Bible Problems (195-207), and Pfleiderer’s Zarly Christian Conceptions of 
Christ, 56f.; for 197?! see Gressmann’s Ursprung d. Isr.-jiid. Eschato- 
logie, 136f.; and for 20%, see EAL. i. 203f., and Klausner’s Messian. 
Vorstellungen d. jiid. Velkes im Zeit d. Tannaiten, 61 f. 


§ 3. Structure.—The first passage where a source becomes 
visible is 718. Ch. 7 is not a literary unit with editorial touches 
(Weyland, Erbes, Bruston, Rauch), but the combination of a 
Jewish (Jewish Christian: Volter, J. Weiss) fragment (7!*: so, e.g., 
Vischer, Schmidt, Pfleiderer, Porter, Bousset, von Soden, Scott, 
Wellhausen) with an original delineation in 7°17. The scenery 
of the former (cp. 14!) is not organic to the prophet’s outlook. 
The winds are never loosed, the sealing is not described, and the 
sealed are not seen. The collocation of the fragment with what 
precedes (winds = 618. numbering = 6", seals = 61%, standing = 69) 
is editorial. Its connection with what follows depends on whether 
71-8 and 7%17 are meant to represent the same group viewed from 
a different standpoint—as if John applied the Jewish oracle to 
the real Jews, God’s Israel of faithful Christians—or different 


494 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


persons, the 144,000 being Jewish Christians as opposed to the 
numberless multitude of Gentile Christian martyrs. Upon the 
whole, the tenor of the Apocalypse tells in favour of the hypothesis 
that 7917 represents 7!* read in the light of 59 (so, ¢.g., de Wette, 
Bruston, Porter, Wellhausen, Hoennicke’s 70. 194f.) with a 
specific application to the candidatus martyrum exercitus. 

In rot! the author drops the figure of a roll of Doom being 
opened, and describes the subsequent oracles as a βιβλαρίδιον of 
prophecy ἐπὶ λαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσιν καὶ γλώσσαις καὶ βασιλεῦσι πολλοῖς, 
whose contents he had digested. For some reason, perhaps to 
make room for this new source, he omitted a seven-thunders 
cycle. The following oracles (11-13, perhaps even 11-19) in- 
corporate, in whole or part, this βιβλαρίδιον (so, e.g., Sabatier, 
Weyland, Spitta, Pfleiderer, and J. Weiss), although its origin 
(Jewish or Christian), date (Neronic or Vespasianic), and exact 
outline can no longer be determined with any precision, owing to 
the freedom with which the composer has worked over his source. 
Thus 111? is commonly taken as a scrap of the Zealots’ prophecies, 
just before a.D. 70 (so, ¢.g., Bousset, Wellhausen, Baljon, J. Weiss), 
but the whole of 1118 is more probably a Jewish (or Jewish 
Christian) oracle of that period.* In 1114-18 the prophet leaves 
his source in order to herald the final crisis by noting the seventh 
trumpet and the third woe, in an overture which leads up to two 
sagas drawn from the mythological background of messianism. 
121-17 represent a Jewish source edited and probably translated 
by the writer, but the real problem of the passage lies not in its 
literary analysis but in the determination of the precise form of 
the sun-myth (Greek, Egyptian, or Babylonian) which the Jewish 
original adapted for messianic purposes. 1319 is one of the 
passages in which a Caligula-source has been more than once 
detected, either Jewish (Spitta, Pfleiderer, de Faye, O. Holtz 
mann, Rauch) or Christian (Erbes, Bruston, Briggs), mainly 
because ‘Caligula’ in Greek and Hebrew answers to the early 
variant (616) of the Beast’s number; but the source might as 
readily be Neronic or Vespasianic (Kohler, J. Weiss, etc.). The 
ghastly scene in 14} 29, with its abrupt allusion to she city (v.2°), 
belongs to the same cycle of tradition as r1!!8, but it is not quite 


* Abbott, however, points out that in Ezekiel and Zechariah, two of the 
main models for John, the measuring of the temple does not take place till 
after the old temple has fallen. He is right in contending that John’s 
attitude to such items of history is that of a poet, not of an exact historian. 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 495 


certain whether it is a fragment, Jewish (Sabatier, Pfleiderer, 
Rauch) or Jewish Christian (Schon, Erbes, Bruston, J. Weiss, 
etc.), or simply an original sketch on the basis of tradition. The 
twofold thread of tradition in 16! is obvious, but again the 
author may have twisted together the ideas of (a) a last conflict 
between God and the world-powers, and (4) Rome’s ruin at the 
hands of Nero redivivus and the Parthians, without using written 
sources. ‘The latter idea proleptically introduces 17 (see p. 505), 
where the main difficulty is to ascertain whether there are two 
sources or one, whether both are Jewish, and whether the 
revision indicates one hand or two (cp. Peake, AVZ. 161 f.). 
174 is an abrupt proleptic allusion to 19!!!) but the writer 
first of all edits (in 187 22) an earlier doom-song over the fall 
of Babylon-Rome which voices, like the source underlying 17, 
the exultation as well as the indignation of a Jewish apocalyptist 
over the guilty, glorious empire. In 19!1-2!, and especially in its 
horrible finale, one would be almost relieved to discover a Jewish 
source (so, ¢.g., Vischer, Sabatier, de Faye, Weyland, Spitta, von 
Soden); but neither here nor even in 20 are the results of the 
literary analysis convincing. More plausibility attaches to the 
analysis of 219-225, which is the imaginative delineation of a 
Christian ideal (1115!) in terms of a Jewish tradition originally 
describing an earthly Jerusalem surrounded by the respectful 
nations of the world. Several traits in the sketch (e.g. 211% 16 
2174-278 22%. 88. δὴ are plainly inappropriate in the new settting 
to which they have been transferred, but they are retained not 
only for the sake of their archaic association, but in order to 
round off the pictorial description of the eternal city. They do 
not necessarily prove the existence of the Jewish source which 
most critics find in the whole passage, and some prefer to trace 
under the repetitions and parallelisms a dual Christian ending 
(so, ¢.g., Erbes and Selwyn). 

The comparatively well-marked unity of the apocalypse does 
not exclude upon the one hand the possibility that it embraced 
sources of an earlier date which the author worked up for hig 
own purpose, to meet the requirements of a later age. Even on 
the hypothesis that no sources were employed, it cannot have 
been the product of a single vision, much less composed or 
dictated at a sitting. The truer hypothesis, that earlier leaflets 
or fragments of tradition were re-set, although their date and 
shape and aim can no longer be ascertained with precision, 


496 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


simply involves that the writer as a poet and a practical religious 
seer attached primary importance to the new sense which he 
found in the inherited materials. Upon the other hand, there may 
be traces (pp. 37f.) of subsequent editing, during the Trajanic 
period or later. (i.) The use of the book in Christian worship * 
(cp. 13 27 etc.) probably accounts for prose glosses like ἅ εἰσιν 

. . θεοῦ (45), of εἰσὶν ... γὴν (5%), ἃ ciow ... dylwy (58), 
τὸ yap... ἐστίν (198), ἡ yap ... προφητείας (19!), καὶ 
κέκληται... θεοῦ. (1918), and otros . . . πυρός (2014), as well as 
for the references to the Lamb, eg., in 13° and 14%  (ii.) 
Several cases of transposition or misplacement also occur within 
the traditional text. Thus (a) 1615 is an interpolation or a gloss 
misplaced perhaps from 3! or 33. (6) 1814 has been displaced 
from its original position between the last ἔτι and the first ὅτε ef 
183 (so Beza, Vitringa, Volkmar, Baljon, Weiss, and Konnecke, 
BFT. xii. 1. 37-38) by a copyist whose eye confused ὅτι οἱ 
ἔμποροί σου with οἱ ἔμποροι τούτων. (¢) Probably 19%! also 
has been disturbed from its original site at the close of 17, where 
the hierophant angel is speaking (cp. 1717= 19%” words of God). 
The displacement in this case was not accidental, but due to 
a scribe who saw that the similar assurance in 215 225 related 
primarily to future bliss rather than to judgment, and who took 
the first λέγει not as a divine saying (cp. 215), but as angelic 
(22°). (d@) 20!4>, which is textually suspect in any case, is either 
a marginal gloss (so, Kriiger: GGA., 1897, 34, von Soden, 
Wellhausen) or, more probably (cp. Haussleiter, 212-213), 
displaced from its original position after 20!, where it would suit 
the context better, since there is no question of any second 
death except for human beings. The misplacement was due to 
the attraction of θάνατος in 2014, (e) The loose contexture of 
the epilogue (22°?!) is improved (cp. ΕΟ 7. v. 580-581) if 
vv.°7 are placed between 9 and 10, and 18:12 interpolated between 
16 and 1, 

If the apocalypse, like the Fourth gospel, was edited prior 
to (or, in view of) its reception into the canon, the most likely 
traces of the process would be found in 11% and 221819 The 
former passage, however, might conceivably have been added by 
the author, like the προοίμιον of Thucydides, after he had 

* The liturgical element is naturally more prominent than in Ephesians; 


cp. the antiphonal bursts of song (4 Bz. 2138-2140, 3242) in the congregation, 
the responsive amen in 5'* 7” etc, 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 497 


finished the book as a whole. The change from the third 
person to the first (1%) is not unexampled in such cases, and 
a certain sententious objectivity is not unnatural at the com- 
mencement of an ancient writing when the author is introducing 
himself. A similar uncertainty besets the uncompromising claim 
in 221819 (cp. En το 4101}, which might be taken as part of the 
apocalyptic literary tradition (cp. ¢g. Slav. Enoch 4879), The 
likelihood, however, is that it represents an editorial note (so 
Jn 214-25) designed to authenticate the writing as in the direct 
succession of the OT prophecies (cp. Jos. Az. xx. 11. 2), 
possibly also to warn wilful or careless copyists (so Eus. HZ. 
vy. 20). Whether written by the author or appended by an 
editor, it definitely asserts that the apocalypse is entitled to the 
canonical privilege of the OT scriptures. 


This latter passage has been used, in recent developments of criticism upon 
fhe NT canon, to support the paradoxical thesis that the Apocalypse was the 
first NT scripture to become canonical (cp. Leipoldt, GX. i. 28f., Hans 
Windisch, ‘Der Apokalyptiker Johannes als Begriinder der NT Kanons,’ 
ZNW., 1909, 148-174, with Harnack’s Reden u. Aufsatze, ii. 239f.), and 
that this claim of a book which contained sayings of the Lord, descriptions of 
God’s kingdom on earth, and church-epistles, paved the way for the subsequent 
canonization of the gospels, Acts, and epistles. 


ὃ 4. Traces in early Christian literature——From an allusion 
like that of Philad. vi. 1 (στηλαί εἰσιν καὶ τάφοι νεκρῶν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς 
γέγραπται μόνον ὀνόματα ἀνθρώπων) -- Apoc 3) (to Christians of 
Philadelphia, ποιήσω αὐτὸν στύλον... καὶ γράψω ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸ 
ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ μου κτλ.), it is possible that Ignatius had read the 
apocalypse, but the occasional similarities of language between 
it and Barnabas (¢g. 17 18=Barn vii. 9, 215=Barn vi. 13, 
2210. 12— Barn xxi. 3, cp. Clem. Rom. xxxiv. 3) are insufficient 
to prove any literary filiation. If the testimony of Andreas is 
reliable, Papias knew the apocalypse; which is intrinsically 
likely, since its chiliasm would appeal to the bishop of Hierapolis 
as it did to Justin Martyr (Afo/. i. 28, ὄφις καλεῖται καὶ σατανᾶς 
καὶ διάβολος, ὡς ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων συγγραμμάτων ἐρευνήσαντες μαθεῖν 
δύνασθε, Dial. 81). Like the Fourth gospel, it became speedily 
popular in some gnostic circles. Cerdon and Marcion naturaliy 
would have nothing to do with it, but it circulated among the 
Marcosians and Valentinians as a sacred book, and the 
Montanists in particular, if we may judge from their opponents 
(Eus. #. 35. v. 18) and from the scanty traces of their own 


32 


498 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN . 


opinions (cp. Zahn’s GX. i. 205 f.), exploited it in the interests 
of their propaganda. 

The repeated echoes in the epistle from the churches at Vienne and 
Lyons (Eus. 47. 5. v. 1) prove that it must have reached Gaul by about the 
middle of the second century. Indeed, Irenzeus (v. 30. 1) could appeal not 
only to those who had seen John, but to πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις 
ἀντιγράφοις. If the language of Hermas (Vs. ii. 2. 7, iv. 3. 1) could be 
interpreted as referring to our apocalypse, it must have been known to the 
Roman church even prior to Justin Martyr. By the end of the second 
century, it was circulated not only at Alexandria (Clemens Alex.), but in the 
African churches (Tertullian). 

The use of the book by the Montanists especially led, by 
a curious phase of revulsion, to the earliest serious criticism 
which was levelled at it by any party within the church. It is 
significant that the first explicit reference to the apocalypse 
occurs in Justin Martyr’s Dia/. 81. He tells Trypho that, like 
all other orthodox Christians, he believed that there was to be 
not only a resurrection of the flesh but “fa thousand years in 
Jerusalem, which will then be rebuilt, adorned, and enlarged, as 
the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and others declare.” In proof of 
this he interprets Is 6522 as a mystical reference to the thousand 
years of Ps go’, and then proceeds, καὶ ἔτι δὴ καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀνήρ 
τις, ᾧ ὄνομα ᾿Ιωάννης, εἷς τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν ἀποκαλύψει 
γενομένῃ χίλια ἔτη ποιήσειν ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοὺς τῷ ἡμετέρῳ Χριστῷ 
πιστεύσαντας προεφήτευσεν. Justin evidently ranks John, as the 
author of the apocalypse, in the prophetic succession. Παρὰ 
yap ἡμῖν, he continues (82), καὶ μέχρι viv προφητικὰ χαρίσματά 
ἐστιν. Justin values the apocalypse because its evidence for 
the chiliastic eschatology was conveyed through prophetic 
ecstasy. Chiliasm, however, was not at all so popular in the 
Western church, and the Montanist movement tended to draw 
suspicion upon persons or books which claimed the prophetic 
spirit of ecstasy. This reaction was one of the influences which 
told against the reception of John’s apocalypse. Thus, in the 
anti-Montanist Muratorian Canon, the reference runs: ‘apoca- 
lypses etiam Iohannis et Petri tantum recipimus, quam quidam 
ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt.’? Here John’s apocalypse has 
risen above Hermas, but not yet above the Petrine apocalypse. 
Among the most prominent critics who rejected its authority 
was Gaius, the Roman churchman at the opening of the third 
century. Prior to him the church-party who were afterwards 
dubbed the Alogi, had demurred to the symbolism of the book 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 499 


as unedifying, and to some of its prophecies as fantastic and 
ridiculous ; but Gaius, who evidently attributed its composition to 
Cerinthus (cp. Schwartz’s Ueber der Tod d. Schne Zebed@i, 1904, 
33-45), took particular objection to its inconsistencies with the 
rest of the NT; ¢.g. 87" contradicted 1 Th 52, οδ΄. was out of 
keeping with 2 Ti 21.118. and Satan (20?) was already bound 
(Mt 187%). All this distaste for the book formed part and parcel 
of a strong antipathy in certain circles of the early church. ‘In 
the course of the third century the reaction in the East against 
the book was in full swing. The rise of Greek Christian scholar- 
ship during the ‘long peace’ after Severus (a.D. 211-249) made 
men more conscious of the critical difficulties of common author- 
ship of Apocalypse and gospel. The slackening of persecution 
set free the natural recoil of the Hellenic spirit against the 
apparent materialism with which the rewards of the blessed and 
the glories of the heavenly Jerusalem are portrayed” (C. H. 
Turner, /ZS. x. 372). The fortunes of the apocalypse, after 
this point, form a chapter in church history. Though its unpopu- 
larity in the Syrian and Greek churches (cp. Gwynn, of. cit. civ.) 
did not prevail in the end over the acceptance of it by the Latin 
churches of the West, yet this movement of antipathy threw up the 
first piece of serious literary criticism upon the book. ‘“ Between 
350 and 450, Greek texts of Revelation were rare in the Eastern 
half of the empire. The best minds of the Greek church, men 
such as Eusebius Pamphili, and Dionysius of Alexandria, denied 
its Johannine authorship. Living in an age when old Greek was 
still the language of everyday life, they were too conscious of the 
contrasts of style which separate it from the Fourth gospel to 
accept the view that a single author wrote both. Having to 
accept John the apostle as author of one or the other, they 
decided in favour of the gospel. In the West, on the other 
hand, where both documents circulated only in a Latin dress, 
men were unconscious of these contrasts of style, and so found 
no difficulty in accepting both as writings of the apostle John” 
(F. C. Conybeare, Zhe Armenian Text of Revelation, pp. τότ f.). 

Dionysius grounds his objections to the apocalypse not on 
the score of its millenarian teaching, although he had been in 
controversy with an Egyptian bishop called Nepos on that very 
point, nor on the score of its obscurity, but on other grounds. 
In the second volume of his work περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν (as cited by 
Eus. H. £. vii. 25) he refers to earlier Christians who had re- 


500 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


jected the book entirely, after a careful and critical examination ; 
τινὲς μὲν οὖν τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ἠθέτησαν Kal ἀνεσκεύασαν πάντῃ τὸ 
βιβλίον, καθ᾽ ἕκαστον κεφάλαιον διευθύνοντες ἄγνωστόν τε καὶ 
ἀσυλλόγιστον ἀποφαίνοντες ψεύδεσθαί τε τὴν ἐπιγραφήν. Ἰωάννου 
γὰρ οὐκ εἶναι λέγουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἀποκάλυψιν εἶναι τὴν σφόδρα καὶ 
παχεῖ κεκαλυμμένην τῷ τῆς ἀγνοίας παραπετάσματι. These views, 
together with the attribution of the book to Cerinthus, plainly 
refer to the second-century criticisms passed by the so-called 
Alogi and Gaius. Dionysius, however, hesitates to follow this 
radical lead. He thinks that the apocalypse is the work of “a 
holy and inspired person” called John, but, he adds, “1 would 
be slow to admit (οὐ μὴν ῥᾳδίως ἂν συνθείμην) that he was the 
apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James,” the author 
of the Fourth gospel and the First epistle. The evidence he 
leads is purely internal. (1) The John of the apocalypse 
expressly mentions himself by name, unlike the author of the 
gospel and the epistle. Who this John was, is not certain (ποῖος 
δὲ οὗτος, ἄδηλον). Had he been the beloved disciple, he would 
have indicated this. Perhaps, of the many Johns, he was John 
Mark or another John of Asia Minor. ἤλλλον δέ τινα οἶμαι τῶν 
ἐν ᾿Ασίᾳ γενομένων, ἐπεὶ καὶ δύο φασὶν ἐν ᾿Εῤφέσῳ γενέσθαι μνήματα 
καὶ ἑκάτερον ᾿Ιωάννου λέγεσθαι. With this conjecture on the 
authorship, he then passes on (2) to differentiate the apocalypse 
from the Fourth gospel (and First epistle) in style and conception. 
Compared with the latter, he premises, the apocalypse has a 
distinctly foreign look (ἀλλοιοτάτη δὲ καὶ ξένη, μήτε ἐφαπτομένη 
μήτε γειτνιῶσα τούτων μηδενί, σχεδόν, ὡς εἰπεῖν, μηδὲ συλλαβὴν 
πρὸς αὐτὰ κοινὴν ἔχουσα). This general impression of an alien 
origin is borne out by a scrutiny of the language (τῆς φράσεως). 
The gospel and epistle “are composed not only in faultless 
Greek (ἀπταίστως κατὰ τὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων φωνήν), but with great 
skill in their expressions, their arguments, and the arrangement 
of their expositions (πολλοῦ ye Set BapBapdv twa φθόγγον ἢ 
σολοικισμὸν ἢ ὅλως ἰδιωτισμὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς εὑρεθῆναι)" ; the author 
had the double gift of knowledge and of expression. As for the 
author of the apocalyse, says Dionysius, “I will not deny that 
he had seen revelations and received knowledge and prophecy, 
but I notice that his dialect and language are not correct Greek 
(οὐκ ἀκριβῶς ἑλληνίζουσαν); he makes use of barbarous con- 
structions (ἰδιώασίν βαρβαρικοῖς), and sometimes of actual 
sOlecisms (καί που καὶ σολοικίζοντα)." 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 50! 


The solecisms are patent. The only question is how far they 
are due to lack of culture or to the influence of Semitic idiom. 
The Hebraistic colouring is evident in anomalous phrases like 
διδάσκειν with dat. (214, after G 95), the variation in the gender 
of ληνός (41°20 after Is 63%), the collocation of fem. substantives 
and mascul. adjectives or participles (e.g. 41 114 173), or of 
nominatives and accusatives (108 113, also 56 14®7-14 etc.), or of 
nominatives in apposition to genitives (15 312), datives (914), and 
accusatives (22° 20%), and mannerisms of style such as the nomin. 
pendens placed at the opening of a sentence for emphasis (e.g. 
312 68 etc.), and the redundant αὐτός in relative clauses (38 72 9 
etc.). These are due in part to the translation of Hebrew or 
Aramaic sources, in part to the influence of the LXX, which is 
more marked than in the Fourth gospel—e.g. in the use of 
phrases like the temple of the tent of testimony (cp. Ex 40* εἰς.) 
ἐνώπιον (=%29), the repetition of prepositions (71: 1633 etc., cp. 
Zec 6!), and of special words (see σάρκας in 1918, with 1618 and 
Zeca): 

The criticism of Dionysius thus opens up the problem of the 
relation between the apocalypse and the Fourth gospel, in- 
cluding the authorship and (inferentially) the date of the former. 

ὃ 5. Zhe Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel.—The relationship 
of the two books is best solved by attributing them to the same 
school or circle in Asia Minor but to different authors. Such 
affinities of thought and style as are evident in both writings 
(e.g., the relation of God, Christ and the believer; keeping God’s 
word or commandments; the use of parentheses and of the 
antithetical method), imply no more than the use of a common 
religious dialect which contemporary writers of the same group 
might fairly be expected to share, for all their idiosyncrasies. It 
is the latter which are decisive. The apocalypse ignores many 
of the most characteristic and favourite terms of the Fourth 
gospel, ¢g. ἀλήθεια, ἀλήθης, ἀληθῶς, ἀντί, ἀπεκρίθη καὶ εἶπεν, 
᾿ἀφίεναι τὰς ἁμαρτίας, θεᾶσθαι, ἴδε, ἴδιος, καθὼς, μέντοι, πάντοτε, 
παρρησία, πώποτε, ὑπό (accus.), and χάρα. Furthermore, it often 
uses the language of the gospel in a way of its own; the αἰώνιος 
of the latter it employs only once (145), and it never connotes 
it with ζωή ; ἄξιος takes the infinitive, not iva; ἔρχου replaces 
ἐλθέ; φῶς and ὃ κόσμος are invariably physical, not spiritual ; 
ἐκεῖνος is never substantival, νικᾶν never transitive ; Ἱερουσαλήμ 
is substituted for Ἱεροσόλυμα, and οὖν is never used of historical 


502 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


transition. These instances might be multiplied (cp. Bret: 
schneider’s Probabilia, 150-161 ; Liicke, pp. 660f. ; J. Réville, Ze 
quatriome évangile, 26-47, 333 f.; Selwyn’s Christian Prophets, pp. 
81f., 222f.).* It must suffice here to point out that the apoc, 
reserves τὸ ἀρνίον for Christ, while the gospel confines ἀρνίον to 
Christians and uses 6 ἀμνὸς rod θεοῦ for Christ. Their common 
use of the redemptive function of the Lamb is not distinctive ; 
it was widespread in primitive Christendom. ‘The apparent 
coincidence of the Logos is still less real; the applications of 6 
λόγος in Jn 11% and of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ in Apoc 191% are drawn 
from totally different soils in pre-Christian Judaism and turned 
to alien ends. Affinities of style like the use of ἵνα or of ἐκ 
(after σώζειν, τηρεῖν) are unimportant.t In several cases, as in 
that of the Logos, the presence of similar or identical phrases 
only betrays the radical difference of standpoint between the two 
books; ¢.g. σκηνόω in Jn 114 and Apoc 7), and Jesus receiving 
from the Father (Jn 108 and Apoc 238). 

The strong linguistic presumption against the theory that the 
relationship of the two books is one of common authorship, is 
amply corroborated by the differences of religious thought, christo- 
logical, spiritual, and eschatological. Christians in the apocalypse 
are never bidden love God or Christ (the ἀγάπη of 25: 19 is mutual 
affection between members of the church); on the contrary, 
they are ranked as δοῦλοι, which in Jn 1515 is explicitly de- 
scribed as an inferior relationship from which Jesus has raised 
his disciples. Similarly, the conception of believers as children 
or sons of God is wholly absent from the apocalypse; the 
solitary allusion (217) in the latter is eschatological, and even so 
it is an OT quotation. All this tallies with the remarkable 
difference of emphasis in the idea of God. He is a dazzling, 
silent, enthroned figure of majesty, not a Father in direct touch 
with his children on earth. God's love 1 is only once mentioned, 
and that casually in an eschatological prediction (20° τὴν πόλιν 
τὴν ἠγαπημένην) ; the fatherhood of God (for Christ’s sonship, cp, 

* Selwyn, like Thoma (ZW7., 1877, 289-341), regards the gospel as a 
correction of the Apocalypse. 

+ ‘*So far as these tests [7.¢e. of language and style] can go, they strengthen 
the criticism of Dionysius, who (we must remember) was a Greek, weighing 
stylistic and grammatical differences found in books written in his own 
language” (J. H. Moulton, Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 490). 

Ὁ Christ’s love is rather more prominent (1° 3°, cp. 3.2), but this is not « 
specifically ‘ Johannine’ trait. 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 503 


16 257 35.21 141) is ignored entirely (even in 217 θεός is substituted 
for the OT εἰς πατέρα); and the conception of the Spirit is 
purely prophetic,* in as sharp contrast to the Fourth gospel as 
the concrete, realistic eschatology. It is not too much to say 
that such idiosyncrasies decisively outweigh any affinities of 
language or conception which may be urged to the contrary. 


Bruston (Ztudes sur Daniel et 7 Apocalypse, pp. 74f.) surmounts the 
difficulty of the style by conjecturing that while John the apostle composed 
the gospel and epistles, the apocalypse (or rather, Bruston’s second source 
for it) was not written till after his death by one of his disciples, ‘ peut-étre 
sur la recommendation que le vieillard lui en avait faite avant sa morte et 
d’aprés le récit quil lui avait fait oralement de la révélation et des visions 
quil avait.eues ἃ Patmos.’ This, however, fails to meet the crucial dis- 
crepancy of religious outlook t (especially in eschatology) between the 
apocalypse and the Fourth gospel. The same objection is valid against 
Zahn’s (/V7. § 74) view that while the gospel and epistles were revised by 
friends of John, who knew more about Greek than he did, the apocalypse 
was left unpolished. The reason alleged for this (‘the more important the 
contents, the less important the form”), that a prophet transcribing his 
visions is less inclined than a historian or teacher to embellish the first draft, 
involves the extraordinary assumptions that the contents of a gospel are less 
important than those of a prophetic ecstasy, and that the apocalypse is no 
more than the transcript of ecstatic visions. 


§ 6. Date.—The Neronic date (1.4. prior to the fall of 
Jerusalem and after Nero’s massacre of the Roman Christians) 
appeals especially to those who feel the dramatic situation of 
passages like 11‘, and who decline to admit the use of any 
sources. It is handicapped, however, by (a) the phase of the 
Nero-redivivus myth which the apocalypse represents, and above 
all by (4) the fact that no worship of the emperor, which is 
adequate to the data of the apocalypse, was enforced until 
Domitian’s reign. ‘lhe hypothesis of a date during Vespasian’s 
reign (so, ¢.g., B. Weiss, Diisterdieck, Bartlet: 44., 388f., C. A. 
Scott) evades (a) but not (ὁ). Vespasian did not take his 
official divinity very seriously. There is no record of any 
persecution during his reign; such might conceivably have 

* We even get the angelus inlerpres of the apocalyptic tradition and the 
seven spirits of the older Babylonian or Persian mythology. 

Τ ‘‘ The writer of the Fourth gospel has a very definite conception of how 
the Lord spoke on earth ; it is difficult to think that the same writer at any 
period should have represented Him as speaking after the manner—the quite 
distinct and sustained manner —in which He speaks in the Apocalypse. The 
earlier date does not help us out of this difficulty” (J. A. Robinson, /7°S., 
1903, p. 9). 


504 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


taken place, but Christians seem to have enjoyed a comparative 
immunity under him, and our available knowledge* of the 
period renders it unlikely (cp. Linsenmayer’s Bekdmpfung des 
Christentums durch den romischen, Staat, 1905, 66f.) that any- 
thing occurred either under him or under Titus to call forth 
language so intense as that of the apocalypse. Some parts of 
the book (e.g. in 13 and 17) may be referred to (Jewish ?) sources 
of this period, but the manifesto as a whole demands a concrete 
situation for which the relations of the empire and the church 
during the eighth decade of the first century do not furnish any- 
thing like sufficient evidence. The most probable solution is 
that, when John wrote, Christians were being persecuted here 
and there in Asia Minor for what Domitian regarded as the 
cardinal offence of refusing to acknowledge him as the divine 
head of the empire. It is not necessary to assume that any 
widespread ‘ persecution’ in the later and technical sense of the 
term was before the prophet’s mind. He himself (1°) had been 
only banished or imprisoned like some of his friends (210, cp. 
Clem. Rom. g). But from the position of matters he argued 
the worst. The few cases of hardship and martyrdom in Asia 
Minor and elsewhere were drops of rain, which warned him that 
a storm was roiling up the sky. Eusebius probably exaggerates 
when he speaks of “many others” along with Clemens and 
Domitilla (47. 45. iii. 18), and the period of terror was admittedly 
short (7. £. xx. g-11, cp. Τοῖς. Aol. 5), but it dinted the 
tradition of the second century deeply, and in any case the 
crisis opened John’s mind to the fundamental issues at stake. 
It is this sense of the irreconcilable antagonism between the 
imperial cultus and Christianity, rather than any specific 
number of martyrdoms, which accounts for the origin of the 
apocalypse during the latter years of Domitian. Its language 
and spirit reveal a situation at once more serious and definite 
than any caused by earlier allusions to persecution for Zhe Name 
or My Name which obtained more or less widely after the 
Neronic outburst (see p. 323). John sees another name set up 
against the name of Christ, and he stamps it as the essence of 
blasphemy to recognise any such title. ‘he Domitianic demand 
for what John dubbed the worship of the Beast is to be met by 

* The alleged evidence from Suetonius (Vesp. 15) and Hilary of Poitiers 


(c. Arian. 3) for a persecution under Vespasian is not worth the trouble of 
weighing. On the title μάρτυς, see Kattenbusch (ZV W., 1903, 111-127). 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 503 


passive resistance on the part of those who put loyalty to Christ 
above any other loyalty. 

The Domitianic date thus offers a fair explanation of this 
apocalypse’s references to the worship of the Beast, in the 
light of contemporary history during the latter part of the first 
century. It is also (4) in line with the earliest tradition, 
and (4) corroborated by the internal evidence of the document 
itself. 

(a) Wherever Epiphanius derived his information that John’s 
exile and release took place during the reign of Claudius (λας. 
li. 12, 233), it is palpably a wrong tradition, unless the tradition 
meant Nero, whom Epiphanius carelessly calls by his second 
name. So far as the early church had any tradition on the 
subject, it referred the banishment to Domitian’s reign. 

The tradition emerges first in Irenzus, whose remark on the name of 
antichrist is quoted (in Eus. H. £. iii. 18) as follows: εἰ δὲ ἀναφανδὸν ἐν τῳ 
νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, δι’ ἐκείνου Av ἐρρέθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν 
ἀποκάλυψιν ἑορακότος. οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ 
τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς. It is not possible to 
turn the force of this passage by pleading (so, ¢.g., Simcox, Selwyn) that 
Irenzus confused the reign of Domitian with his (cp. Tac. 7252. iv. 2. 11) 
temporary regency in A.D. 70 (January to October), or by referring ἑωράθη to 
ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης instead of to ἡ ἀποκάλυψις (so, ¢.g., Wetstein, MacDonald’s Life 
and Writings of St. John, New York, 1880, 169, E. Bohmer: Uder Verfasser 
und Abfassungszett des Apokalypse, pp. 30f., Bovon,* and Chase, /73. viii. 
431-435). The latter is particularly unsuccessful (cp. Abbott, Dzat. 29772) ; 
the subject of ἑωράθη is plainly the apocalypse just mentioned, and, as 
Irenzus elsewhere (¢.g. ii. 22. 5) declares that John lived till the reign of 
Trajan, there would be no sense in saying that he was seen during Domitian’s 
régime. 

(4) Ch. 17 discloses a plurality, or at least a duality, of 
literary strata as well as of traditions. Those who postulate a 
Jewish source (so, ¢g., Vischer, Wey'and, Charles, Schmidt, 
Sabatier, Ménégoz, von Soden) usually make it a Vespasianic 
oracle, prophesying doom for Rome as the persecutor of God’s 
people. When the source is taken to be Christian, the 
Domitianic editor’s hand is found especially in 17! (so Harnack : 
TU. ii. 3. 134f.; ACL. ii. 1. 245-246, Briggs, Gunkel, J. Weiss, 
etc.). But neither on these hypotheses, nor on those of two 
sources (e.g. Wellhausen), are the data of the passage quite clear. 
The strata of tradition can be seen overlapping more clearly than 
the editorial processes of revision or combination. Thus, in 

* Cp. Hort’s ed. pp. 41-42, and Jacquier, ZZ. iv. 317-318. 


406 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


vy.8: 12f the Beast is the infernal Nero redivivus, while v." 
identifies Domitian with Nero the Beast; and it is hard to 
believe that one and the same writer could simultaneously regard 
Domitian as a second Nero and expect Nero redivivus as a semi- 
supernatural power. Upon the whole, one of the least unsatis- 
factory solutions is to take as a Domitianic gloss by the 
Christian editor, who also added ® (if not all of *) and“ toa 
Vespasianic (Jewish ?) oracle in 17** which anticipated the down. 
fall of Rome at the hands of Nero redivivus and his Eastern 
allies. ‘The reckoning of the seven Roman kings, which resembles 
the calculations of 4 Esdras and Barnabas (4), begins with 
Augustus* (so Tacitus) and passes over the three usurpers 
(Galba, Otho, and Vitellius; cp. Suet. Vespas. 1), as provincials 
would naturally do, to whom the struggle of the trio was no more 
than a passing nightmare. The sixth and reigning emperor (6 εἶ 
ἔστιν) is Vespasian, with whom the Flavian dynasty took up the 
imperial succession after Nero’s death, which. ended the Julian 
dynasty, had well-nigh broken up the empire (13°). Vespasian’s 
successor, Titus, is to have only a brief reign. As a matter of 
fact, it did not last more than a couple of years. After him, the 
deluge! Nero redivivus (τὸ θηρίον), who had already reigned 
(6 ἦν), but who meanwhile was invisible (καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν), is to 
reappear from the abyss, only to be crushed finally (καὶ εἰς 
ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει). Thus the downfall of the persecuting empire 
is to be heralded by the advent after Titus of one belonging to 
the seven (ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν)ὴ emperors who, on the traditional 
reckoning of the Aeads, were to see the rise and fall of Rome. 
The author of v.11, living under Domitian, is obliged to identify 
the latter with Nero (as in another sense some of his own pagan 
subjects did);+ but he still anticipates the imminent crisis 
predicted by his source. It is plain, therefore, that a Vespasianic 
oracle has been brought up to date in v.1!; the course of actual 
history had broken through the eschatological scheme at one 
point, but, while the prophet seeks (in the contemporary and 

* Augustus =ceBaords, a word which had (especially in Asia Minor) the 
distinctly religious connotation of worshipful, was one of the ὀνόματα 
βλασφημίας (13!) which horrified the prophet John. 

¢ The cal/uus Nero gibe of the Romans had a sterner replica in early 
Christianity (cp. Eus. 37. &. iii. 17: ὁ Δομετιανὸς. . . τελευτῶν τῆς Νέρωνος 
θεοεχθρίας τε Kal θεομαχίας διάδοχον ἑαυτὸν κατεστήσατο. δεύτερος δῆτα τῶν 


καθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀνεκίνει διωγμόν, καίπερ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῷ Οὐεσπασιανοῦ μηδὲν καθ' 
ἡμῶν ἄτοπον ἐπινοήσαντοξ). 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 507 


historical note of v.!1)* to repair the’ latter, he adheres firmly to 
his belief in it. 


No literary filiation can be established between the apocalypse and any 
other NT writing which throws light upon its date. But one incidental 
water-mark of the Domitianic period, first pointed out by S. Reinach, occurs 
in 6° (cp. the present writer’s study in Fx. 1908, Oct., 359-369), where the 
immunity of wine may be a local allusion to Domitian’s futile attempt (in 
A.D. 92) to check the cultivation of the vine in the Ionian provinces. 

The post-Neronic period is indicated by two other minor traits. (i.) The 
language, ¢.g., of 13)" is sometimes used to prove that the apocalypse breathes 
the atmosphere of the wild commotion and anarchy between A.D. 70. This 
interpretation is certainly truer to the data than that which finds an allusion 
to the murder of Julius Czesar (so, ¢.g., Gunkel, Porter, and Bruston), or to 
Caligula (Spitta). But the point of the oracle is that this weltering chaos 
had passed, leaving the empire stronger than ever, under the Flavians. The 
apocalyptist looks back upon the bloody interregnum which followed Nero’s 
death. The collapse of the Julian dynasty, so far from proving fatal to the 
State, had simply aggrandised its influence; the tradition of the wounded 
head (Dn 88) had been fulfilled. This retrospective attitude, together with 
the belief in Nero redivivus, points away from the Neronic period. (ii.) A 
further proof that the apocalypse could not have been written earlier than 
the eighth decade of the first century is furnished by the evidence of Polykarp 
(ad Phil. 118, cp. Zahn’s Forschungen, iv. 252 f.), which shows that the 
church at Smyrna could hardly have had, by A.D. 70, the history presupposed 
ma, 

Several reasons contributed to the popularity of the seventh 
decade date. (i.) The Tiibingen school required it for their 
thesis that the Balaamites and Nicolaitans were Pauline 
Christians whom the narrower faith of John the apostle attacked 
(cp. Hausrath, iv. 256f., and Baur’s Church History of First Three 
Centuries, i. pp. 84-87). Soon after Paul left Asia Minor, John 
settled there and wrote this vigorous pamphet in which he 
congratulated the metropolitan church of Ephesus for having 
detected false apostles like Paul, and for having resisted the 
subtle encroachment of the latter’s Gentile Christian propaganda. 
It is no longer necessary to refute this theory, except to point 
out that, when the Neronic date and the Johannine authorship 
are maintained, there is a much more plausible case for it than 
several conservative critics appear to realise. (11.) Those who 


* John’s revisal of the seven heads is paralleled by the author of Daniel’s 
addition of the eleventh horn to the traditional ten, under similar historical 
exigencies. Bruston, Zahn, and Clemen (ZVV. ii. 109f., xi. 204f.) are 
among the few critics who still refuse to see any reference to Nero the 
infernal revenant. 


508 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


ascribed both the apocalypse and the Fourth gospel to the 
apostle, naturally required a long period during which his 
thought and style were supposed to mature.* (ili.) The 
allusions in 11}: and elsewhere were taken to imply the period 
prior to the final destruction of Jerusalem, upon the view that 
the apocalypse reflected the contemporary situation in Palestine 
—a view not dissimilar to that which placed Hebrews in the 
same decade. The recognition of Palestinian traditions and 
sources removes any difficulty about the later date which may be 
felt on this ground. 


For recent defences of the Neronic date, see Hort (cp. JC. 160 f.), Simcox, 
Selwyn (of. czt, pp. 215f.), and Β. W. Henderson (Life ana Principate of 
Nero, 439f.). The Domitianic date is argued, in addition to older critics like 
Mill, Hug, and Eichhorn, by Hofmann, Lee, Havet, Milligan (Désczsszons, 
75-148), Alford, Gloag (Jxtrod. Joh. Writings), Salmon (7277. 221-245), 
Schafer (Zix/. 347-355), Godet, Holtzmann, Cornely, Belser, Jiilicher, 
Weizsicker, Harnack (ACL. ii. 1. pp. 245 f.), McGiffert (44. 634f.), Zahn, 
Wernle, von Soden, Adeney (77. 464f.), Bousset, von Dobschiitz, Well- 
hausen, Porter, R. Knopf (ΜΖ. 38f.), Abbott, Kreyenbiihl (Das Zuglm der 
Wahrheit, ii. 730f.), Forbes, Swete, A. V. Green (Zphestan Canonical 
Writings, 182f.), and A. S. Peake (JV7Z. 164f.), as well as t, from outlying 
fields, by J. Réville (Origines de Pepiscopat, i. 209 f.), Ἐς C. Arnold (Die 
Neronische Christenverfolgung, 1888), Neumann (ZC., 1888, 842-843, 
reviewing Arnold), Ramsay (CRZ. pp. 268-302, EZ. xvi. 171-174, Seven 
Letters, 93-127), S. Gsell (Régne de Pémpereur Domitien, 1895, pp. 307 f.), 
Matthaei (Preussische Jahrb., 1905, 402-479), and E. T. Klette (Dée 
Christenkatastrophe unter Nero, 1907, 46-48). 


§ 7. Odject.—Over two centuries earlier the great exemplar of 
apocalyptic literature had been published in order to nerve the 
faithful who were persecuted for refusing to admit the pre- 
sumptuous divine claims of Antiochus Epiphanes. John’s 
apocalypse is a latter-day pamphlet thrown up by a similar 
crisis. The prophet believed that the old conflict had revived 
in its final form; Daniel’s predictions were on the way to be 
fulfilled when a Roman emperor blasphemously claimed the 
title of dominus et deus, and insisted on the rites of the Cesar- 


* Cp. Hort (Apocalypse, p. x1), ‘* Without the long lapse of time and the 
change made by the fall of Jerusalem the transition @vnnot be accounted for. 
Thus date and authorship hang together. It would be easier to believe that 
the Apocalypse was written by an unknown John, than that both books 
belong alike to St. John’s extreme old age.” See below, § 8. 

+ Several critics who assign parts to an earlier date agree also that the 
final shaping of the book took place under Domitian (so, ¢.g., Erbes, Barth, 
and J. Weiss). 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 509 


cultus as a test of loyalty.* This popular deification of the 
emperor, with the corresponding recognition of dea Roma, were 
particularly rampant in Asia Minor, and the apocalypse is a 
vigorous summons to the church to repudiate the cultus at all 
costs. Hence its emphasis upon the virtues of martyrdom and 
upon the speedy downfall of the Roman empire. 


**Rome shall perish! write that word 
In the blood that she has spilt.” 


The loyalist attitude of Paul, and even of the author of First 
Peter or of Clemens Romanus, is exchanged for a passionate 
belief that the empire is the incarnation of anti-divine power ; 
the prophet’s aim is to rally the faith of the church by heralding 
the imminent downfall of her oppressor. The imperial cultus is 
taken to mean the last iniquity on earth, and Rome’s downfall 
means the downfall of the world. 

§ 8. Authorship.—The internal evidence thus shows a writer 
who was (or, was represented to be) an ardent Jewish Christian 
prophet named John, steeped in apocalyptic traditions, and in 
close touch with some of the Western Asiatic churches. The 
disjunctive canon which we owe primarily to the critical insight of 
Dionysius, Origen’s thoughtful scholar, further proves that he 
was not the author of the Fourth gospel (or, inferentially, of the 
First Epistle of John). 

(a) The hypothesis of John the apostle’s authorship t is 
ruled out by the acceptance of the tradition of his early martyr- 
dom (see below, Chap. V. (C.)), and, even apart from this, it is im- 
probable, especially as presented by those who maintain that the 
Fourth gospel (with the Epistles) and the apocalypse were both 
written by him at the very end of his life. The acceptance of 
the Domitianic date, which throws the apocalypse close to the 
Fourth gospel, renders it quite impossible to maintain the 
common authorship of both works, as though, ¢.g., a short exile 
at Patmos temporarily transformed (Ramsay, Seven Letters, 87) 
‘the head of the Hellenic churches in Asia Minor’ into a 


“For the literature, cp. Lindsay, Church and Ministry in Early 
Centuries 5 (1903), 341, and EG7. v. 400. 

+ So, recently, B. Weiss, W. H. Simcox, C. A. Scott, Zahn, Batiffol 
(Lecons sur les évangiles*, 1907, 106f.), Stanton (GAD. i. 171 f.), Lepin 
(L’origine du quatr. évangile, 1907, 257f.), Jacquier (V7. iv. 321 f.), and 
Abbott. 


510 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


Hebrew seer. Even the relegation of the apocalypse to the 
earlier date, and the inference that twenty or twenty-five years’ 
residence in a Greek city like Ephesus improved John’s style 
and broadened his outlook into a more spiritual range, do not 
suffice to meet the facts of the case. As Liicke and Alford * 
have pointed out, the Greek of the Fourth Gospel and of the 
first Epistle of John is not that of the apocalypse in an 
improved and maturer state. “The difference,” as Swete rightly 
observes (pp. clxxvili—clxxix), “is due to personal character 
rather than to relative familiarity with Greek. And when style 
expresses individual character it undergoes little material change 
even in a long life of literary activity, especially after the age 
which St. John must have reached in a.p. 69 or 70.” The 
fundamental difference in the use of language is corroborated, 
as the same writer adds, by an equally decisive difference in the 
attitude of both writers to Christianity, which is not fairly 
explained by making the apocalypse the expression of a 
rudimentary faith, ‘Even conceding the priority of the 
Apocalypse, can we explain the difference of standpoint by 
development? Is the relation of the apocalyptic to the 
evangelical teaching that which exists between rudimentary 
knowledge and the maturity of thought? And is it to be 
maintained that St. John’s conceptions of Christian truths were 
still rudimentary forty years after the ascension, and reached 
maturity only in extreme old age?” The answer to these 
searching questions must be in the negative. 

Even those who give up John’s authorship of the Fourth 
gospel fail to make out a good case independently for his 
authorship of the apocalypse. Thus the vindictive, passionate 
tone of the latter is connected with the temper displayed in the 
incident of Mk 988% (Lk 955); but in that case we should have 
to assume that the rebuke of Jesus produced no impression on 
one of the two disciples, and that forty years later he was un- 
affected by what he had heard his Master say. If it is hard to 
fit the personality of the beloved disciple or the mystical 
genius who wrote the Fourth gospel to the personality of the 
apocalyptic seer, there are almost as great psychological 
difficulties in the path of those who would associate him with 


* Milligan (Déscussions on the Apocalypse, 185-186) also dismisses this 
theory (held, e¢.g., by Lightfoot, Ga/atiams, 337, etc.) as ‘‘highly un. 
satisfactory.” 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN LPS 


the son of Zebedee. These would not be insuperable if the 
apocalypse showed other evidence of apostolic (Johannine) 
authorship, but the reverse is the case. Thus, in 32! (δώσω αὐτῷ 
καθίσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ pov) the writer attributes to Jesus 
the very prerogative which the Lord disclaimed (Mk τοῦθ). In 
1112 the inviolability of the Jerusalem-vaos is assumed, in 
contrast to the explicit logion of Mk 131: (cp. Ac 61). The 
general scheme of the apocalypse, with its calculations of the 
end, is more in keeping with the eschatological methods of the 
Jater Judaism than with the spirit, ¢g., of Mk 12517, Mk 1382, 
Ac 188, and 7% (where the safeguarding of the elect precedes 
instead of following the crisis, where the four winds are agents 
of destruction instead of being geographical, and where the 
role of messiah is entirely omitted) differs from the synoptic 
scheme (Mk 13747) as g!5 does from Mt 247 (so Gaius). These 
features suggest that the author was some early Christian prophet 
who sat looser to the synoptic tradition than one of the twelve 
would have done. This is borne out by the fact that he claims 
no apostolic authority, nor is there any evidence * that he had 
been an eye-witness of Jesus on earth. An apocalypse is not a 
gospel ; still, a personal friend is a personal friend, and the 
apocalyptic categories of 1% are not such as might have been 
expected from one who had been numbered among the inner 
circle of the Galilean disciples. Finally, though 18% does not 
absolutely exclude the possibility that an apostle wrote it,—since 
apostles as well as prophets might describe objectively the order 
to which the prophet belonged,—the objective and retrospective 
tinge of 2114 (the twelve apostles of the Lamb) suits a non-apostolic 
writer upon the whole better than an apostle. 


‘*One may wisely hesitate to define the area of the impossible, but it is 
surely in the highest degree unlikely . .. that an unlettered Galilean 
peasant should, in the stress of the Parousia expectation of those earliest years, 
have turned to literary investigation and Oriental learning, . . . and that, 
above all, one who had sat at the feet of Jesus could put forth a work in 
which the great teachings of the divine Fatherhood, the universal brotherhood, 
the spiritual kingdom scarcely appear, but in their place we hear hoarse cries 
for the day of vengeance, and see the warrior Christ coming to deluge the 
earth with blood ” (Forbes, /ntern. //dbks to NT. iv. 96). 


* «« That the writer of Rev. need not have known Jesus, remains a strong 
indication that he did not know Him ” (Porter, DZ. iv. 265); cp. Hoekstra, 
op. ctt. 366 1. 


512 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


(4) When the hypothesis of an apostolic authorship is set 
aside, the choice lies between the two figures suggested by 
Dionysius of Alexandria, each of whom has advocates in modern 
criticism. (i.) Some Asiatic prophet of that name (so, «4 g., 
J. Réville and Jiilicher). This is quite possible, as the name 
was common enough. (ii.) John Mark, however, is a more 
authoritative personality (Ac 135: 13) than any unknown John, 
and his claims have been urged especially by Hitzig (Ueber 
Johannes Marcus und seine Schriften, 1843, pp. 11f., 67-116), 
Weisse (Zvangelien-Frage, 1856, pp. g91f., 140, 180), and 
Hausrath (iii. 268),* as well as by those who (like Spitta and 
Volter) make him responsible for one of the sources underlying 
the book (see above, pp. 489f.). Dionysius, who does not 
connect John Mark with the second gospel, brings forward no 
stylistic argument from that quarter; he simply dismisses the 
suggestion on the ground that John Mark (Ac 1313) did not 
accompany Paul into Asia Minor. This would be no valid 
argument against the theory, for John Mark may have settled 
subsequently there quite as well as John the apostle. Acts is as 
silent on the one as on the other, in this connection. Still, 
the share of Mark in the second gospel, if it does not absolutely 
exclude his composition of the apocalypse, does not favour it; 
and, as the John-Mark hypothesis is a pure deduction from one 
or two statements and a large amount of silence in the early 
Christian literature, it has never commanded very much support. 

(c) The possibility that this apocalypse, like most of its class, 
may be pseudonymous (‘‘qui hoc opus negabant esse Ioannis 
euangelistee, aut alium fuisse Ioannem ab euangelista credebant, 
quemadmodum duas posteriores epistolas adscribebant Ioanni 
non euangelistee sed presbytero, aut eum qui conscripsit librum 
id egisse, ut ab euangelista scriptus uideretur eoque locum suo 
instituto commodum affinxisse,” Erasmus) has also to be taken 
into account (so, e.g., Volkmar, S. Davidson, Weizsiacker, Forbes, 
Wernle: U7c. i. 363, cp. Bacon in £xf., 1907, 233 f., and Fourth 
Gospel in Research and Debate, pp. 160f.), particularly in the 
form of a literary fiction under the name of John the apostle. 
A priori, the hypothesis is legitimate. On the other hand, an 


* Hausrath, however, will not decide between John Mark and some other 
John. In any case, the apocalyptist, he holds, was a Palestinian Christian 
who strongly objected to the liberal practices of Pauline adherents in the 
Asiatic churches, 


THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 613 


early Christian apocalypse was not necessarily pseudonymous. 
Hermas is not. It is true that the apocalypse of Peter, which 
ranked along with John’s apocalypse in some circles of the early 
church, belongs to the pseudepigrapha; but here the apostolic 
characteristics are definitely drawn by the author, whereas John’s 
apocalypse contains no specific traits which would lead the 
reader to imagine that the seer was an apostle.* Another 
raison-d éire for pseudonymity is absent, viz. the consciousness 
that the prophetic spirit was no longer present in the church. 
Though the contents of the apocalypse are sometimes no more 
than a secondary product of the prophetic inspiration, some of 
its cardinal passages represent direct personal visions; the 
ante-dated predictions in the apocalypse (e.g. in 13 and 17) are 
too subordinate to necessitate a recourse to pseudonymity here 
as in the older Jewish pseudepigrapha. On the other hand, if 
John the apostle was martyred early, it becomes more possible 
to conceive how the apocalypse was written under his rame 
towards the close of the century, and modifications of the 
pseudonymous theory in this direction are upheld by those who 
find in it earlier fragments or traditions either of John the son of 
Zebedee (so, é.g., Erbes and Bruston), or of John Mark, or of 
John the presbyter (see above, p. 489). 

(4) The last-named figure, however, may well have been the 
real author of the book. He suits the requirements at least 
better than any other contemporary who is known to us, and, 
unless we are content to share the pious agnosticism of 
Dionysius upon the apocalypse, as of Origen on Hebrews, or to 
adopt some form of the pseudonymous hypothesis, the balance 
of probability inclines to John the presbyter, who must have 
shared the prophetic and even the chiliastic aptitudes of the 
Asiatic circle to which he belonged,—this is a fair inference from 
his relation to Papias and the presbyter-traditions of Irenzeus,— 
who was a μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου in the wider sense of the term (2.6. 
a primitive Palestinian Christian), and who was one of the most 
important authorities in touch with the earlier apostolic tradition. 
It is more feasible to credit him with the rabbinic erudition and 
the eschatological lore of the apocalypse than one who was 
ἀγράμματος καὶ ἰδιώτης (Ac 4}%). 

* The seer is simply the brother of his readers (1° ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ 
ovykowwvés). Paul in 2 P 3" is no more (ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφός), it is 
true, but there one apostle is supposed to be referring to another. 


33 


514 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 


This hypothesis, which goes back to Eusebius (basing on the hint of 
Dionysius), was suggested afresh by Vogel * and He'nrichs (in Koppe’s V7. 
1818), and worked out from different standpoints by Eichhorn, Rettig (Das 
erweislich alteste Zeit f. d. Apocalypse, 1831), Bleek (cp. his Bettrage zur Ev. 
Kritik, 184-200), Liicke (SK., 1836, 654 f.), de Wette, Schenkel, Ewald, 
Wittichen, Wieseler, Mangold, Credner, Neander, Keim, Havet, O. Holtz- 
mann, Mejjboom, Diisterdieck, Selwyn, Erbes, Harnack, Bousset, Kohler, 
Lindenbein, von Soden, Heinrici (Ure. 1902, 126 f.), A. Meyer (7#., 1907, 
138), and von Dobschiitz (Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters, 1904, 91 f.). Grotius 
threw out a conjecture to explain it (‘credo autem presbytero, apostoli 
discipulo, custoditum hunc librum ; inde factum ut eius esse opus a quibusdam 
per errorem crederetur’), but it is favoured more or less tentatively by 
recent critics like Loisy (Ze Quatr. Evangile, 134), Swete, McGiffert, 
Pfleiderer (Ure. ii. 420f.), Jacoby (Meutest. Ethtk, 1899, 444-455), and 
Peake (JNV7. 152 f.). 


* Vogel’s idea was that 4}-11}9 and 1°-3™ were (Neronic) fragments, 
written by the apostle and subsequently edited by the presbyter, who (undes 
Galba) was responsible for the apocalypse as a whole. 


CHAP LER. ΨΝ. 


(A) THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 


LITERATURE. — (a) Modern editions—G. Hutcheson (London, 1657); 
Lampe’s Comm. Analytico-Exegeticus (1724); Semler’s Paraphrasts (1771); 
5. G. Lange (Weimar, 1797); H. E. ἃ. Paulus (Philologisch-kritisch und 
historische Commentar wiber den Evglnm Joh. 1812); Kuinoel? (Leipzig, 
1817); L. Usteri’s Commentatio Critica (Ziirich, 1823); J. Munter’s 
Symbole ad interpret. Evang. Joh. ex marmoribus et nummts maxime grects 
(1826) ; Klee (1829); H. A. W. Meyer (1834, Eng. tr. 1875); Lassus, 
Commentaire philosophique (Paris, 1838); Lucke® (1840)*; A. Maier 
(1843 f.); Baumgarten-Crusius (1844-5); De Wette® (1846); Tholuck? 
(1857, Eng. tr. 1874); J. P. Lange (1860, Eng. tr. 1872f.); L. Klofutar 
(1862) ; Olshausen* (1862, Eng. tr. 1855); Ewald, Die Johan. Schriften 
(1862); W. Baumlein (Stuttgart, 1863); -D. Brown (Glasgow, 1863); J. J. 
Astié (Zxplication de Τέω. selon S. Jean, 1864); A. Bisping (1865); 
Hengstenberg? (1867 f., Eng. tr. 1879-80); Burger (1868); Luthardt 3 
(1875-6, Eng. tr. 1876); Schaff (ed. of Lange; New York, 1872); H. 
W. Watkins (Ellicott’s Comm. 1879); Milligan and Moulton (Schaff’s 
Comm., vol. ii.); Westcott (Sfeaker’s Comm. 1880)*; C. F. Keil (1881) ; 
H. Conrad (Potsdam, 1882); P. Schanz (1885) "; Fillion (1887) ; Reynolds 
(Pulpit Comm. 1887-8); Whitelaw (1888); Wahle (1888); Godet4 
(1903, Eng. tr. of third ed., Edin. 1888-9)* ; K. Schneider (1889); G. 
Reith (Edin. 1889); Wohlfart (1891); Plummer (CG7Z. 1893); Bugge 
(Germ, tr. by Bestmann, 1894); M. Dods (267. 1897); Knabenbauer 
(1897); A. Schroeder (Lausanne, 1899); M‘Clymont (C&. 1901); 
Ceulemans (Malines-Dessain, 1901); Schlatter* (1902); J. M. S. Baljon 
(1902); Petersen (1902); Blass, Euglm sec. Joh. cum var. lect. delectu 
(1902); B. Weiss (— Meyer®, 1902)*; Loisy (1903) ἢ; Calmes (1904) ; 
Gutjahr (1905); A. Carr (Cambridge, 1905); Belser (1905); Heitmuller* 


1For periodic surveys of the literature and detailed bibliographies, see, 
in addition to the works of Luthardt, Schiirer, Watkins, and Sanday, 
Pfitzenmeier’s Apergu des controverses sur le quatriéme Evargile (These de 
Strasbourg, 1850); H. J. Holtzmann in Bunsen’s Azbel-Werk, viii. (1866) 
pp. 56f. ; Pfleiderer (PAZ., 1902, 57-74); Conybeare (77., 1906, 39-62) ; 
A. Meyer (7%., 1906, 302f., 339f., 387f.); and H. L. Jackson, 7ike 
Fourth Gospel and some recent German Criticism (1906). 

515 


516 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


(SMZ. 1907); H. P. Forbes (/utern. Habks NT. iv. 1907‘; Westcott 
(Greek text and notes, 1908); Holtzmann-Bauer* (HC.? 1908); Well- 
hausen* (1908); Zahn? (ZX. 1909) *. 

(6) Studies. —(i.) against Johannine authorship :—Edward Evanson ( 7h%e 
Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists and the Evidence of their 
Authenticity examined, Ipswich, 1792);! Vogel, Zuglm Johannes und seine 
Ausleger, etc. (1801) ; Horst in Henke’s Wuscum fiir Religionswissen, i. 47 f. ; 
H. H. Cludius, Uransichten (1808), pp. sof., 350 f.; Ballenstedt, Phz/o und 
Johannes (1812) ; Bretschneider, Probabilia de Evang. et epistolarum Johannis 
apostoli indole et origine (1820)*; H. C. M. Rettig, De guattuor Evang. 
Canonicorum origine (1824); Liitzelberger, Die Kirchl. Tradition tiber d. 
Apostel Johannes, etc. (1840); B. Bauer, Aritik d. Evang. Geschichte d. 
Johannts (1840) ; A. Schweitzer, Das Euglm Johannis (1841) ; Zeller ( Theol. 
Jahrb., 1845, 577f., on internal evidence); Schwegler (/VZ. ii. 346f.); 
Baur, Die Kanonischen Evglien (1847); also in Theol. Jahrb. (1848), pp. 
264f. (on paschal controversy); Hilgenfeld, Das Euglm und die Briefe 
Johannis nach threm Lehrbegriff (1849)*, and Die Euglien nach threr Stellung 
und geschicht. Bedeutung (1854); Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu (1857); J. 
R. Tobler, Dze Euglienfrage im allgem. und dte Johannisfrage tnsbesondere 
(1858); Weizsicker (Jahrb. deutsche Theologie, 1859, 685 f., on ‘ Beitrige zur 
Charakter d. Johan. Evglms’); M. Nicolas, Etudes critiques sur la Bible, 
pp. 127f. (1864); Scholten, Het evangelié naar Johan. (1864, Germ. tr. 
1867); J. J. Tayler, Am attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth 
Gospel . . . (1867, second ed. 1870); J. C. Matthes, De ouderdom van jet 
Johannes-evangelié (Leyden, 1867); E. V. Neale (Theological Review, 1867, 
445-472); Schenkel, Das Charakterbild Jesu4 (1873); W. Cassels (SAX. 
1874); Thoma, Dze Genesis des Joh.-Evglms (1882)*; Jacobsen, Unter- 
suchungen tiber das Joh.-Evglm (1884); M. Schwalb, Unsere vier Euglien 
erklart und kritisch gepriift (1885); O. Woltzmann, Das Johannes-Euglin 
(1887)*; Briickner, Dze vier Evglien (1887); R. Mariano (Ure. iv. 45- 
110)"; Cone (Gospel and its Earliest Interpret., 1893, 267-317, also in 
New World, 1893, 1-28); van Manen, OCL. §§ 32-40; J. Reville, Ze 
guatriéme évangile, son origine et sa valeur (1901); E. A. Abbott (5.82. 
1761f.)*; P. W. Schmiedel (242. 2503f.); Loisy, Autour dun petét livre 
(1903, pp. 85-108); Wrede, Charakter und Tendenz des Joh.-Evglms 
(1903)*; Kreyenbiihl, Das Zuglm der Wahrheit. Neue Lisung der Joh.- 
Frage (i. 1900, ii. 1905). (ii.) in favour of Johannine authorship :—L. 
Bertholdt, Verisimilia de origine Evangelit Johannis (Erlangen, 1805: 
gospel orig. =Aramaic notes); J. A. L. Wegschneider, Versuch einer 
vollstandigen LEinleitung in das Evglm Joh. (Gottingen, 1806); J. T. 
Hemsen, Die Authentie d. Schriften d. Evang. Joh. untersucht (1823, reply 
to Bretschneider) ;? K. Frommann (SA., 1840, 853-930, against Weisse) ; 
Ebrard, Das Euglm Joh. und die neueste Hypothese tiber seine Entstehung 


1Cp. a reply by Thos. Falconer: Certain Principles in Evanson’s 
Dissonance, etc., examined (Oxford, 1811); also the English reply to Strauss 
by Andrews Norton (Genuineness of Four Gospels, 1837 f.). 

2 Other replies to Bretschneider by Olshausen (Die Lchtheit d. vier 
kanon. Kvuglien, 1823) and Crome (/robabilia hand Probabalia, 1824). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 517 


(1845, against Baur); Bleek’s Bettrdge zur Euglienkritik (1846); A. 
Norton, Evidences of Genuineness of Gospels* (1846-8, Cambridge, U.S.A.) ; 
Ebrard’s Wéssensch. Kritik® (1850, third ed. 1868, pp. 828 f.); A. Ritschl 
(Theol. Jahrb., 1851, pp. 500f.); G. K. Mayer, Dze Echtheit des Evglms 
nach Joh. (Schafihausen, 1854); O. Thenius, Das Zugim d. Evglien (an open 
letter to Strauss, 1865); Hase, Vom Eugim des Johannis (Leipzig, 1866) ; 
higgenbach, Dze Zeugnzsse fur das Evgln Joh. (1866, external evidence) ; 
Jas. Orr, The Authenticity of John’s Gospel (London, 1870, reply to J. J. 
Tayler and S. Davidson); 5. Leathes, Zhe Wetness of St. John to Christ 
(1870); Sanday, Authorship and Historical Character of Fourth Gospel 
(1872) *; Witting, Das Euglm S. Joh. die Schrift eines Augenzeugen und 
zwar α΄. Apost. Johannis (1874); C. E. Luthardt, St. John the author of the 
Fourth Gospel (Eng. tr. by Gregory, Edin. 1875, with valuable biblio- 
graphy)*; Beyschlag (SX., 1874, 607 f., 1875, 413f.); Sanday, Zhe Gospels 
in the Second Century (1876); J. M. M‘Donald, Life and Writings of St. 
John (New York, 1880, pp. 268 f.); H. H. Evans, St. John the author of 
the Fourth Gospel (1888) ; Watkins (Bampton Lectures, 1890); Wetzel, Dze 
Echthett u. Glaubwiirdigkett d. Evang. Joh. (1899); Camerlynck, De guarti 
euangeltt auctore (1899-1900, also in BLEL., 1900, 201-211, 419f., 633f.); 
T. B. Strong and H. R. Reynolds in 228. ii. 680-728 ; Mangenot (Vigoroux’ 
DB. iii. 1167-1203); Hoonacker (AB., 1900, 226-247); J. Drummond, 
An Enquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1903)* ; 
Haussleiter (7heol. Litteraturblatt, 1903, 1-6, 17-21, and Déze Geschichtlich- 
keit des Joh.-Evgims (Leipzig, 1903); C. Fouard, S. Jean et la fin de Page 
apostoligue (Paris, 1904, Eng. tr.); R. Seeberg (VAZ., 1905, 51-64); 
Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905); R. H. Strachan (DCG. 
i. 869-885); CQR. (1905) 84-107, 387-412, (1906) 106-134; Lepin,! 
Lorigine du quatriéme Evangile (1907)* ; C. E. Scott-Moncrieff, St. John, 
Apostle, Evangelist, and Prophet (1909). (111.} on special points +—G. C. 
Storr, weber den Zweck α΄. evang. Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis? (1810) ; 
K. F. Ranke, Plan und Bau des Joh.-Evglms (Berlin, 1824); Weizsaicker 
(Jahrb. deutsche Theologie, 1857, 154f.. 1859, 685f., ‘das Selbstzeugniss ἡ. 
Joh. Christus’); H. Spaeth (ZW7., 1868, 168f., 309f., ‘ Nathanael, ein 
Beitrag zum Verstandniss der Composition d. Logos-Evglms’); R. H. 
Hutton, Zssays Theol. and Literary (1871, ‘Historical Problems of the 
Fourth gospel’)*; G. W. Pieritz, Zhe Gospels from the rabbinical point of 
view, showing the perfect harmony between the Four Evangelists on the 
subject of the Lora’s Last Supper (1873); F. von Uechtritz, Stevzen diber den 
Ursprung, die Beschaffenheit, und Bedeutung des Evang. Joh. (1876); A. Ui. 
Franke, Das AT bei Johannes (1885); Resch, Paralleltexte zu Johannes 
(1896) ; Schlatter, ‘die Parallelen in den Worten Jesu bei Johannes und 
Matthaus’ (BF7., 1898, v.); Rollins (Azsotheca Sacra, 1905, 484-499, 
written by John, edited by Apollos) ;3 J. H. A. Hart (Zxf.7 v. 361f., vi. 


1 Lepin’s volume, like the essays by A. Nouvelle (L’authenticité du quatr. 
Evangile et la thése du M. Lotsy, Paris, 1905) and C. Chauvin (Les zaées 
de Loisy sur le quatr. Evangile, 1906), is specially directed against Lojey. 

2 Tobler (see above) had already conjectured that Apollos composed the 
F aurth gospel on the basis of Johannine traditions. 


518 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


42f., ‘plea for recognition of historical authority of Fourth gospel’); C. 
Gleiss (WAZ., 1907, 470f., 548f., 632f., 673f., ‘ Beitrage zu der Frage nach 
der Entstehung und d. Zweck des Joh.-Evglms’); R. H. Strachan (2.χ 2.7 
viii.-ix., ‘The Christ of the Fourth Gospel’); P. Ewald (VXZ., 1908, 
824-853, ‘die subjective Form der Johann. Christus-Reden’); van Eysinga 
(PM., 1909, 143-150, ‘zum richtigen Verstindniss d. Johann. Prolog’) ; 
O. Zurhellen, Die Heimat des vierten Evglms* (1909); Ὁ. H. Miiller 
(SBAW., 1909, ‘Das Joh.-Evglm im Lichte ἃ. Strophentheorie’); A. 
Merx, ie vier Kanonischen Evglien nach threm alt. bekannten Texte. . 

iz, 3. Johannes (Berlin, 1910)* ; M. Goguel, Les Sources du récit Johannique 
de Ja Passion (Paris, 1910); Lepin, La Valeur Historique du Quatriéme 
Evangile (Paris, 1910) ἢ; E. H. Askwith, 7he Historical Value of the Fourth 
Gospel (1910). (iv.) on the Logos-conception :—W. Baumlein’s Versuch die 
Bedeutung des Johannischen Logos aus dem Religionssystemen des Orients zu 
entwickeln (1828); Anathon Aal, Geschichte d. Logosidee (i. 1896, ii. 1899) ; 
E. Bréhier, Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d@ Alexandrie 
(Paris, 1908)*; J. S. Johnston, Zhe Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel (A 
Study of the Logos-Doctrine, its Sources and Significance), 1909. (v.) 
general :—R. Shepherd, Notes Crit. and Diss. on the Gospel and Epp. of St. 
John (London 1796); J. G. Herder, Von Gottes Sohn der Welt Heiland. 
Nach Joh.-Evglm (Riga, 1797); C. C. Tittmann, Meletemata Sacra (1816, 
Eng. tr. 1844); Kostlin, Lehrdbegriffe des Evgln u. der Briefe Johannis 
(1843); C. Niese, Die Grundgedanken des Joh. Evglms (Naumburg, 1850) ; 
C. P. Tiele, Het evang. van Johannes (1855); M. Aberle (7heol. 
Quartalschrift, 1861, 37 £.); B. Weiss, Der Joh. Lehrbegriff (1862); Nolte 
(Theol. Quartalschrift, 1862, 464 f.) ; Schwalb (Revue de Théol., 1863, 113f., 
249 f., ‘Notes sur l’évangile de Jean’); Weissaicker’s Untersuchungen tiber 
die Evang. Geschichte (1864, second ed. 1901) ἢ ; Sabatier (SA. vii. 181- 
193); Renan, i. pp. 477-541; M. Wolf, Das EZuglm Johannis in seiner 
Bedeutung fiir Wiss. τ. Glauben (1870); H. Delff, Hxtwickelungsgeschichte 
d. Religion (1883, pp. 264f., 284f., 329f.); F. Ὁ. Maurice, Zhe Cospel of 
St. John (1888) ; H. Delff, Geschichte d. rabbi Jesus von Nazareth (1889, 67- 
206) ;1 Reuss, W774. ii. 331 f.; H. Kohler, Das Euglm Joh., Darstellung 
des Lehrbegriffs (1892) ; C. Montefiore (/QR., 1894, 24-74) ; G. B. Stevens, 
The Johannine Theology (New York, 1894); Baldensperger, Der Prolog 
des Vierten Evglm (1898)*; A. Titius, Die Joh. Anschauung unter d. 
Gesichtspunkt der Seligkeit (1900)*; Purchas, Johannine Problems and 
Modern Needs (1901); Schlatter (B¥7., 1902, iv. ‘die Sprache u. Heimat 
des vierten Evglms’); J. Grill, Uscersuchungen tiber die Entstehung d. 
Vierten Evglms i. (1902)* ; J. L. Nuelsen, Die Bedeutung des Evglm Joh. 
fiir d. Christliche Lehre (1903); Inge (DCG. i. 885-895, also in Cambridge 
Biblical Essays, 1909, 251-288); H. A. Leenmans (7%eol. Studién, 1905, 
377-412) ; J. d’Alma, La Controverse du Quatriéme Evangile (1908) ; E. F 
Scott, Zhe Hourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology* (1909) " ; A. E. Brooke 


1 Delff’s further works included Das Vierte Euglm, ein Authentischer 
Bericht wiber Jesus von Nazareth (1890); Neue Beitrige «war Krilih 
und Erklirung d@. vierten Evglms (1890); and an essay in SX. (1892) 
pp- 721. 


CONTENTS 519 


‘ Historical Value of Fourth Gospel’ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, 
289-328); B. W. Bacon, Zhe Fourth Gospel in esearch and Debate” 


(New York, 1910); A. V. Green, Zhe Ephesian Canonical Writings 
(London, 1910). 


§ 1. Outline and contents.—Special literature: K. Meyer, der 
Prolog des Joh.-Evglms (1902); Lattey (Zxp.’, May 1906, 424- 
434), Hitchcock (Zxf.7, Sept. 1907, 266-279), Walther, 7 πλα 
u. Gedankengang des Evglm nach Joh, (1907). 

The analysis of the gospel, as it stands (leaving out ch. 21), 
depends upon its bisection into two parts (1-12, 13-20) or three 
(1-6, 7-12, 13-20). The latter suits the data better, The 
earlier ministry oscillates between Galilee and Jerusalem (21-67, 
Samaritan city = 45-42 followed by a σημεῖον of resurrection) ; the 
later (71-1243) is confined to Judea, with two retreats (1o*-42 
and 115457), the former (πέραν τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου) of which is followed 
by a σημεῖον of resurrection (49% 41 = 104 belief of many), the 
latter being εἰς "Edpaip λεγομένην πόλιν. The third part (13) 
20%!) describes the conversation of Jesus at the last supper (13!— 
176), the arrest, trial, and death (181--τ 942), and the appearances 
after death (201-81), 

The prologue illustrates Pindar’s comparison of an opening 
lyric to a stately fafade: ἀρχομένου δ᾽ ἔργου χρὴ πρόσωπον θέμεν 
τηλαυγές. 


Quod initium sancti euangelii cui nomen est secundum Iohannem, 
quidem Platonicus . . . aureis litteris conscribendum et per omnes ecclesias 
in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat (Aug. C#ust. Dez, x. 


29). 


The Logos is the divine principle of creation (17), apart from 
which the universe is unintelligible; no Syuotpyos has any 
place or function in creation, beside the active Logos. Neither 
here nor elsewhere, however, does the author dwell upon the 
general creative energy of the Logos; it is the specific function 
of revealing the divine nature to men (1*®) which immediately 
absorbs his attention. Zhe /ife was the light of men. The 
opposition encountered by the pre-Christian revelation is so 
characteristic of human nature in all ages that the writer drops 
into the present tense in v.65. Hurrying on to the final revela- 
tion, for which John the Baptist was merely a witness (1°%), he 
explains that, when John was testifying, the Light was already 
coming into the world. In spite of John’s testimony and his 


520 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


own revelation, however, only an elect minority of believers * 
(112 = 203!) welcomed the Logos (19:13). To them the incarnate 
Logos (no phantom of docetic gnosticism), in virtue of his 
divine sonship,+ manifests and imparts the real nature of God 
the Father (11418). 

The introduction (1195!) develops the witness of John the 
baptizer to Jesus as the Christ (125), the Son of God (1%, ep. 
2081). This witness is borne in a triple fashion: (@) before 
sceptical Judaism {5 οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, 119-28), (Ὁ) in a soliloquy f (17% 
34), and (c) before two of his own disciples (155%). The third 
testimony starts a movement towards Christian discipleship : 
(a) two of John’s disciples join Jesus (137-89), (4) they bring over 
others (149-42), and (ὦ finally (τῇ ἐπαύριον, as in 17% %), Jesus 
himself calls a third set (14°*).§ The genuine Israelite is he 
who (14749) comes to Jesus through sceptical prejudice and 
confesses him to be the Son of God. 

The religion of Jesus is now under way. The three follow- 
ing stories bring out its superiority to the older Judaism (2! 
2131. 31-21) from various points of view. The activity of the 
disciples in baptizing throughout Judea leads up (note the loose 
μετὰ ταῦτα) to John’s final witness (322) and incidentally to 
a mission at Sychar (415) as Jesus and his disciples make their 
way north to Galilee (4%). Here the second σημεῖον rounds 
off the opening cycle which began with the first σημεῖον (both 
at Kana: petition for help, eliciting of trust 25= 4°, mysterious 
aid). The faith of the μαθηταί (211) has now widened into the 
faith of those benefited (45°); for this faith in the word (333) 
of Jesus, see already 4*!, as contrasted with faith in his σημεῖα 
(2% 4%). 

The second cycle contains two controversies with the Jews 
occasioned by three σημεῖα, one at Jerusalem (5) and two in 
Galilee (6). The second of the latter σημεῖα (61%?!) is really a 
pendant, as in the synoptic tradition, to the former (61:18), and 
does not appear to have any independent significance. The 
narrative of the period closes with a messianic confession of 


* Note the climax of (humanity), 115 (Judaism), and ™* (Christians). 

+ A Philonic touch; to see God was the mark of primogeniture (De Jost. 
Caini, 18). The phrase χάριν ἀντὲ χάριτος is another reminiscence and 
adaptation of Philonic language (cp. de post. Caind, 43). 

t At any rate, no audience is mentioned. 

§ Note in this paragraph the interweaving of (δ) and (c) in 1% and 1®, 


CONTENTS 521 


faith on the part of the eleven disciples (6%); the secret dis- 
loyalty of the twelfth (6771) is noted by way of dramatic 
anticipation. 

The mystical revelations and claims of Jesus have now 
not only driven many of his μαθηταί away from him (600. 666.) 
but provoked the deadly antipathy of Judaism (516: 18 71). The 
controversies of 5-6 have led to nothing; they have evoked 
only perplexity and irritation, even in Galilee. The second part 
of tne ministry (7-12) includes the deepening conflict with 
Judaism, in a series of discussions at Jerusalem during the 
feast of tabernacles (7-107!) and the feast of dedicatton (τὰ 
ἐγκαίνια, 1077-89), A partial sympathy is elicited (74=10!%), 
but it is a resurrection-oypetoy (11)44, after 1027-28) which first 
converts many of the Jews (11 1211), though it also brings the 
mortal hatred of the Jews as a whole toa head (114%), The 
subsequent entry into Jerusalem (12!!%) is followed by an 
episode (1220-23) which is the third anticipation of Christ’s death 
and resurrection as prefigured in the σημεῖον of 111-44, the two 
others being the prophetic word cf Kaiaphas (1147-8) and the 
action of Mary (1218). A final summary of the results achieved 
by the public mission of Jesus is appended, the general 
unbelief of Judaism being accounted for on the theory of 
predestination. 

The third section of the gospel opens with the actions 
(1315), the instructions (13-16), and the last prayer of Jesus at a 
private supper with his disciples. After death he appears thrice: 
to Mary of Magdala (20118), to the ten disciples (20!3 in 
the evening), and, a week later, to the eleven, including Thomas 
(20%-29), 


The oscillation between Galilee and Judea is strongly marked. Jesus 
appears in the vicinity of John the Baptist πέραν τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου (1%); he 
then moves into Galilee (1*, no reason given), from which the approach 
of the passover recalls him to Jerusalem (2135); he departs els τὴν ᾿Τουδαίαν 
γῆν (3*, no reason given), returns to Galilee vi Samaria (for enig- 
matic reason given in 4!), and again goes up to Jerusalem to attend a 
Jewish festival (51). The next chapter (61) places him in Galilee (no reason 
given for his return), and in 7" he goes back upon his own initiative to the 
capital for the oxnvornyla. He is still here in 107, but retires (104-42) 
πέραν τοῦ ’lopddvov (=1*"-) to avoid being arrested for blasphemy. After a 
brief visit to Bethany (11%), for the purpose of raising Lazarus, he again 
retires in order to avoid arrest, this time not north into Galilee, but to the 
own of Ephraim (1153). Finally, the approach of the passover brings him 


522 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


back to Jerusalem (112% 1%), where all the resurrection-appearances take 
place (pp. 254-255). 


§ 2. Sources.—Apart from the OT, the main currents which 
flow through the gospel are those of (a) Paulinism,* (4) the 
Jewish Alexandrian philosophy, and (c) Stoicism. Though not 
mutually exclusive, for practical purposes they may be noted 
separately. (a) The author has worked in the Pauline antithesis 
of grace and law (117 cp. Ro 614),¢ and Pauline ideas like 
God’s sending of his Son (3!7=Gal 4*5) and God’s love 
(ἠγάπησεν, 315, cp. Eph 24). On the other hand, a conception 
like that of Phil 2711 is different from that of Jn 374%; the 
idea of the Spirit as a factor in the glorified nature of Christ 
(Ro 14) lies outside the special view of the Fourth evangelist, 
who tends to confine the operations of the Spirit to believers ; 
and both the Pauline conceptions of sin and faith fall into the 
background before other interests. These differences, however, 
do not affect the general impression that on such cardinal topics 
as union with Christ, freedom (8%), and life in relation to the 
glorified Christ, the writer has developed his theology from 
Pauline germs. Even the specific sense attached to Ἰουδαῖοι in 
the Fourth gospel may be but the development of Paul’s usage 
in his epistles, where the synoptic Φαρισαῖοι tends to be dropped 
for Ἰουδαῖοι as the opponents of Christ and Christianity (cp. 
Resch, Paulintsmus, 194-196, 540). 

(ὁ) Alexandrian Judaism had already blended with Paulinism 
in Hebrews, which lies midway between Paul and the Fourth 
gospel; cp. the parallels with the latter in creation διὰ Χριστοῦ 
(12 2cp. Jn 1%), absence of self-glorification on Christ’s part 
(5* cp. Jn 85), Christ as man’s access to God (7% cp. Jn 145), 
Christ the shepherd (137° cp. 1014), the unity of the ἁγιάζων and 
the ἁγιαζόμενοι (24 = Jn 171% 21), and 3!=Jn 207, 107% = Jn 148, 
1116=Jn 14%, The conception of Jesus in Hebrews is closer 
(51:9) to the synoptic tradition at some essential points, however, 
than to the Johannine, which tends to omit such features of cry- 
ing and infirmity as derogatory to the Logos-Christ on earth. 


* Cp. Reuss, W774. ii. 513f.; A. Titius, pp. 11f., 15f., 32f., 7of., 
115f., etc. 

+ The phrase incidentally shows how far the old controversy over the law 
lay behind the writer and his readers. As Reuss (of. c##. 533) observes, 
““he seems almost Ἢ have forgotten that this was a point around which 
controversy had raged long and passionately.” 


PHILONIC TRAITS 523 


The helpful idea that even Jesus required to win his way into 
the higher reaches of thought and feeling towards God is vividly 
present to the mind of the Alexandrian genius who wrote 
Hebrews, but it is not congenial to the temperament of the 
Fourth evangelist. 

The most noticeable channel for this Alexandrian influence 
on the Fourth gospel, however, is Philonism. ‘The reader of 
Milton,” said Coleridge, “‘must be always on his duty; he is 
surrounded by sense ; it rises in every line ; every word is to the 
purpose.” This canon answers to the critical spirit in which the 
Fourth gospel has to be read. Symbolic or semi-allegorical 
meanings are not to be expected or detected in every phrase or 
touch, however incidental; allowance must be made for the 
introduction of circumstantial details such as an imaginative and 
dramatic writer is accustomed to employ for the purpose of 
heightening the effect at certain points. Generally, however, the 
reader of the gospel is surrounded by allusions which are not 
always obvious upon the surface. There is often a blend of 
subtlety and simplicity in which the significance of some 
expression is apt to be missed, unless the reader is upon the 
outlook, or, as Coleridge put it, upon his duty. The brooding 
fulness of thought and the inner unity of religious purpose 
which fill the book demand for its interpretation a constant 
sensitiveness, especially to the deeper meaning which prompted 
the methods of contemporary religious speculation along the 
lines of the Alexandrian Jewish philosophy (cp. p. 27) as 
represented by Philo. To μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὸ βλεπόμενον 
γεγονέναι. 


The differences between Philo and John only bring out the latter’s ἡ 
familiarity with the Philonic methods and materials which he uses for higher 
ends. Thus the numerous δυνάμεις or λόγοι of the speculative religious world, 
which were expressions or agents of one divine Power,* were swept aside 
by this author, just as Paul had already done along a different line; there 
is but one Logos, and that is Jesus Christ. John’s Logos is historical and 
personal. In the very act of setting aside such speculations,t however, 
the writer uses many of their phrases. Thus 118 is a thought characteristic 
of Philo, who protests earnestly against the idea that God can be seen 
(de mut. nomin. 2), and adds, @ propos of Gn 17}, that such allusions 


* Cp. Usener’s Gitternamen, pp. 339 f. 
1 Cp. the sentence of Cornutus, τυγχάνει δὲ ὁ Ἑρμῆς ὁ λόγος Gr, ὃ: 
ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ οἱ θεοί. 


524 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


to the vision of God imply the manifestation of one of his powers (sdéd. 3. 
ὡς μιᾶς τῶν περὶ αὐτὸ δυνάμεων, THs βασιλικῆς, προφαινομένης). Similarly, 
the changing of the name, in order to express a deeper significance in 
the bearer’s new relation to God (1), is in Philo also (de mut. nom. 13) 
a function of the Logos (in the case of Jacob, not of Abram), where it 
is associated with being ‘born of God’ (cp. de gég. 14, ‘when Abram 
became improved and was about to have his name changed, he then became 
aman of God’). John’s habit of using phrases of mysterious and symbolic 
significance * for apparently simple actions and events, is illustrated not 
only by the rabbinic come and see (146), which was commonly employed as the 
prelude to some deep truth, but, ¢.g., by Philo, who, commenting on the 
τί ζητεῖς of Gn 37% (quod det. potiori, 8, cp. Jn 133 τί ζητεῖτε), explains it as 
the utterance of the Elenchos (or convicting Logos) to the wandering home- 
less soul. A further Alexandrian trait occurs in 2111 where the Logos-Christ 
not only opens his ministry by supplying mankind with the new wine of the 
gospel, but fulfils the rdle of Philo’s Melchizedek, the prototype of the Logos, 
who ἀντὶ ὕδατος οἶνον προσφερέτω καὶ ποτιζέτω καὶ ἀκρατιζέτω ψυχάς (leg. 
alleg. iii. 26). The Logos-Christ is also omniscient (cp. 1 233, He 4153, 
Philo, Jeg. alleg. iii. 59), and a διδάσκάλος (3? 1318: Philo, guod deus sit 
tmmutabilés, 28). Furthermore, the s¢x ὑδρίαι (2°) from which the wine is 
produced, correspond to the Philonic principle that ‘‘six is the most 
productive of numbers” (ἐξάδι τῇ γονιμωτάτῃ, Decalogo, 30). There is also 
a remarkable parallel to 3% in Philo’s comment on Nu 112” (g%gant. 6), 
while the five husbands t of 415 are the five earlier deities of the Samaritan 
cultus (2 K 17%"; Jos. Avt. ix. 14. 3),§ and ke whom thou now hast ts not 
thy husband, is either Yahweh, who really belongs to Israel, or else Simon 
Magus (Ac 8*-, Justin’s 4fo/. i. 26), the contemporary idol of the Samaritans. 
Similarly, 45% reflect the Philonic idea (deduced from Ex 32?) that 
χειρόκμητος οὐδείς ἐστιν ὄψει καὶ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν θεός, GAN ἀκοῇ καὶ τῷ νομίζεσθαι, 
καὶ ἀκοῇ μέντοι γυναικός, οὐκ ἀνδρός (de post. Catnt, 48), while the conception 
in 5!” echoes the Alexandrian doctrine of God’s unresting activity (Philo, 


* Cp. Abbott, Dzat. 1119-1120 (‘‘ He is always mystical, always fraught 
with a twofold or manifold meaning, as though he said, ‘ You shall not go 
a step with me unless you will think for yourselves.’ Sometimes he seems to 
meander in long discourses or dialogues. . . . In some respects the style is 
complicated asa sonnet ; and we feel beneath it the influence of the allegorising 
school of Philo and of the Jewish canons about the methods of stating 
terrestrial and celestial doctrine’’). 

{ On the Philonic element and influence, see especially E. F. Scott, The 
Fourth Gospel, 53{., and Feine, V77h. 638 f. 

t Cp. Philo, a fuga εἰ inuentione, 14, τὸ δὲ πολυμιγὲς καὶ πολύανδρον καὶ 
πολύθεον κτὰλ., also de mutat. nominum, 37. 

§ Josephus writes that the Cuthzans, ‘‘according to their nations, which 
were five, introduced their own gods into Samaria,” and that, after being 
plagued to death for their idolatry, they ‘‘ learned by an oracle that they must 
worship Almighty God.” He adds, ‘‘ when they see the Jews in adversity, 
they say they are in no way related to them, and that the Jews have no right 
to expect any kindness from them” (cp. Jn 45). See above, p. 29. 


CHRISTOLOGY §25 


leg alleg. 1. 3, παύεται yap οὐδέποτε ποιῶν ὁ θεός κτὰλ., adding in 7, ἅτε od 
τεχνίτης μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πατὴρ ὧν τῶν ywoudvwv).* The identification of the 
Logos-Christ with the bread of life or manna in 6*f is reproduced from 
Philo’s well-known identification of the manna (Ex 16* 16) with the Logos 
(e.g. de profug. 25). With 15} we may also compare the Philonic original 
in the comment on Gn 18! in de sobrietate, 11 (οὐχὶ δεσπότης ἢ κύριος" φίλον 
γὰρ τὸ σοφὸν θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ δοῦλον), and the equally striking anticipation in 
migrat. Abrah. 9. These instances will suffice to show that in literary 
methods, no less than in religious speculation, the Fourth evangelist had been 
trained in the Philonic spirit. 

(c) The Stoic ring of some sentences in the prologue is 
natural, in view of the fact that Ephesus had been the head- 
quarters of the Logos-idea as developed by the philosophy of 
Herakleitus, himself a well-known and revered author in Asiatic 
Christian circles (Justin, Afo/. 1. 64, cp. Orig. ¢ Cels. i. 5). 
Though the Logos-idea was mediated and moulded for the 
author by the speculations of Alexandrian Judaism, and though 
the fusion of Stoicism with the latter had blended several 
characteristic traits, there are (see below) elements in the Fourth 
gospel which point to a fairly direct contact with the Stoic 
propaganda. ‘Thus the sentence, 7 the beginning was the Logos, 
and the Logos was θεός, might have been written literally by a Stoic, 
as Norden argues (ii. 472 f.); it was written by one acquainted 
with the writings of Herakleitus, though the un-Stoic sentence, 
and the Logos was with God, at once betrays a Jewish current. 

§ 3. Object and christology—The dominant feature of any 
gospel is its conception of Jesus, and the Fourth gospel is a 
study or interpretation of his life, written in order to bring out 
his permanent significance as the Logos-Christ for faith. The 
author does not find Jesus in the Logos; he finds the Logos in 
the Jesus of the church, and the starting-point of his work is a 
deep religious experience of Jesus as the revelation of the Father. 
At the same time, even as a historical writer he is to be judged 
by the fact that his account of Jesus is introduced by a sketch 
of what he understood to be an adequate philosophy of the 
Christian religion. f 


* The activity of the Logos-Christ on the sabbath answers to Philos’ 
identification of God’s rest on the seventh day (Gn 2? *) with his higher 
activity in creating through the Logos natures of divine capacity (/eg. a//eg. 
i. 6. 8). With 519 cp. Philo, de confus. ling. 14, and G. Klein’s Der Aelteste 
Christliche Katechismus (1909), pp. 53f. 

t The prologue is organic to the conceptions of the book ; for an opposite 
view, see Harnack, Z7A, ii. 213 f. 


526 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


One result of this Logos-category is that the human career 
of Jesus tends to become an episode in the eternal existence of 
the Logos, through which he passes comparatively unhampered 
and unruffled. There is an aversion, on the writer’s part, to 
admit any outside impact upon Jesus and a corresponding 
tendency, as far as possible, to dissociate his course of action 
from the natural suggestions and motives which might be 
supposed to have rippled on his personality. This emphasis 
on the self-determining authority of Jesus may be illustrated by 
a reference to 2111 711 015-18 and 1847; from first to last he 
is master of his course. It is consonant with this attitude that 
he alone speaks from the cross (1976°); no one ventures to 
address him there (as in the synoptic gospels). The same 
pragmatism recurs in 111-16, where the action of Jesus is studiously 
removed from the sphere of human influence or appeal, and 
where the tendency to emphasise his mysterious wisdom is as 
marked as the desire to bring out the greatness of the miracle. 
The omniscience * of Jesus in this gospel is full-orbed from the 
very beginning; it requires neither to be sustained nor to be 
matured by new accesses of experience, and in fact represents 
a dramatic expansion of the Logos-idea in Col 29 or He 41718, 
The Jesus of this writer anticipates human insight. He is first, 
with men, even with the keenest (138 43, 47-48), He forms his 
own plans, knows where to hold aloof from human nature, and 
rarely (41 11%) requires any information as to the temper and 
attitude of his contemporaries (contrast 2°425 with Mk 827, cp. 
also 9% 1142 1516), Not even his relatives can fathom or fore- 
cast his intentions (2? 6° 13”). He takes the initiative (contrast 
65 with Mk 6880 84), and, even when initiative is impossible, shows 
himself serenely conscious of all that is transpiring (65 7 1.41. §), 
The Passion is no drift but an open-eyed choice, exhibiting 
marks of a royal advance (142 12 22 165. 7. 22-28) Jesus is not 
swept into the power of death (10!8); up to the very last he 
takes the lead, and after the resurrection he is too holy for 
human endearment (note the correction in 207 of Mt 28%). 
Similarly, during his lifetime on earth he hardly requires to pray 
(1147); on the contrary, he is prayed to by the church (note 
the significant omission in 615 as compared with Mk 645, Mt 
1433. not prayer, but the need of avoiding pressure from the 


* He is αὐτοδιδάκτος (1% 417-18 % 542 615. 61. 64 8” etc.), and entitled to the 
divine name of καρδιογνώστης. ‘* Nothing to him falls early or too late,” 


CHRISTOLOGY 527 


side of men is the motive for his retirement). He also carries 
his own cross (19!", as against Mk 157). 

The desire to minimise anything like suggestion or influence 
from without is part of the Logos-motive in the delineation of 
Jesus, which tended to emphasise the transcendental and inviolate 
freedom of the Logos-Christ on earth. The Jesus of the Fourth 
gospel really never acts upon the direct initiative of others, and 
it is this abstract tendency in the book which accounts for 
such features as his attitude to his mother (in 24) and his 
brothers (in 7), as well as for the conception of the σημεῖα. To 
a greater degree than the synoptic Jesus, the Jesus of this 
evangelist possesses a knowledge of his own career and fate 
which invests him with a unique detachment and independence 
of spirit. The writer has too much artistic taste and historical 
sense to represent his Jesus on earth as a mere symbol of the 
Logos-idea ; the latter is dexterously confined to the prologue, 
although its essential contents underlie the subsequent stories 
and speeches which are interpenetrated by its spirit. But its 
exploitation led to a new representation of the Lord’s character 
on earth. To graft it upon the synoptic tradition meant a 
problem of extreme delicacy; to harmonise the human Jesus 
and the mysterious Logos involved a reaction of the latter idea 
upon the data of the former, and the success of the writer is to 
be measured by the comparative skill with which he has retained 
the impression of psychological reality and human feeling in the 
description of Jesus as the Logos-Christ. He is too Christian 
to have committed the error of depicting an entirely superhuman 
or docetic Jesus; his Christ is still subject to the natural laws 
of the world (111°), to space and time (4!“), to weariness and 
thirst, to motives like prudence (71 8° ro 1154), grief (1136), 
joy, and indignation (187°), But the tendency to obliterate the 
features of surprise, ignorance, mistake, and disappointment 
reaches its climax in the Fourth gospel, and one result is that 
the unspeakable gains in our conception of Christ are ac- 
companied by a certain lack of the homeliness and definite 
human charm with which the earlier synoptists invest his person. 
To the writer Jesus is more than ever the head of the church, 
a community standing over against Judaism, the representative 
of divine light amid darkness, the final source of truth amid 
error, The surprising thing is that, writing under so dominant 
a tendency, he has managed to delineate a character and at the 


528 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


same time to develop abstract antitheses and dogmatic ideas, 
in such a way that the Logos-idea has not overwhelmed historic 
circumstantiality or led to serious contradictions. This bears out 
the conclusion that he “is not dramatising a metaphysical abstrac- 
tion, but idealising (showing the highest significance of) a 
historical figure.” * 


This emphasis upon the self-possession of Jesus, as I have elsewhere 
shown (Zxf.° iv. pp. 127 f., 221 f.), is due to the influence of contemporary 
Stoicism, mediated in part by the conception of the divine σοφία in the 
Wisdom of Solomon, where autonomy is predicated of the highest life. As 
this independent volition and self-contained power was regarded, ¢.g., by the 
best Stoics as the crowning excellence of human life, it is likely that this 
element contributed more or less unconsciously to a portrait of Jesus in 
which the writer aimed at bringing out as far as possible his absolute 
authority in action and his superiority to human pressure. While the employ- 
ment of the Logos-category in itself involved a free handling of the synoptic 
tradition and at the same time encouraged any tendency to heighten the 
majestic self-possession of Jesus in the interests of reverence and faith, this 
does not suffice to explain the distinctive quality of the Fourth gospel; the 
latter is intelligible in the light of the contemporary Stoic bias and of its 
affinity to the author’s speculative bent, though he is far from the extreme 
standpoint of Clement of Alexandria, and indeed makes statements which 
may be regarded now and then as implicit criticisms of the Stoic ideal (cp. 
e.g. Abbott’s Dat. 1705-1706, 1727 «.). 


This subordination of humane compassion to divine authority 
comes out specially in the σημεῖα. Neither here nor elsewhere 
is Jesus viewed as an embodiment of the divine χάρις. He says, 
“1 am ἡ ἀλήθεια," but not “I am ἡ χάρις," and the omission of 
words like éAcéw, οἰκτιρμός, σπλαγχνίζομαι, and ἔλεος is significant. 
The σημεῖα retain a human element, but it is subordinate, if not 
accidental.t ‘The miraculous power, which in St. Matthew, 
St. Mark, and St. Luke is mainly the organ of a divine com- 
passion for human misery and pain, is in this gospel—primarily 
at least—the revealing medium of a mighty spiritual presence, 
and intended more as a solemn parting in the clouds of Provi- 
dence, to enable man to gaze up into the light of divine mystery, 
than as a grateful temporary shower of blessing to a parched 
and blighted earth” (R. H Hutton, Theological Essays, p. 178). 


* Inge in Cambridge Biblical Essays, 281-282. 

+ Cp. Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels? (1886), p. 151, “τῆς 
synoptical miracles are, in the main, miracles of Aumanity ; the Johannine 
miracles are, so to speak, miracles of state. They are wrought for the purpose 
of glorifying the worker.” 


CHRISTOLOGY $29 


This is one of the numerous points at which the Fourth gospel 
represents the climax of a development which may be traced 
already in the synoptic tradition of Mk. as employed by Mt. 
especially—a development which heightened the thaumaturgic 
character of the σημεῖα, and also began to view them not so 
much as incidental acts of mercy and love, but as repeated and 
general demonstrations of Christ’s messianic power. These 
traits are predominant in the Fourth gospel, where the σημεῖα 
are moulded into proofs of mysterious power and immanent 
glory resident in the personality of Jesus. 

The monotones of the Fourth gospel thus relate to the life 
and teaching of Jesus. The synoptic distinction between the 
periods before and after the messianic confession at Czsarea 
Philippi (Mk 877-8) is omitted in a writing which from the outset 
presents both Jesus and his adherents as fully conscious of his 
messianic dignity; the variety and practical bearings of his 
veaching in the synoptic record are replaced in the Fourth gospel 
by an unvarying series of modulations upon the theme of his 
own person in relation to the Father, believers, and the world 
in general. The synoptic Jesus also alluded to the unique 
significance of his person, but only occasionally (Mt 11%, Lk 
718), and exalted personal claims were elicited from him by 
the carping criticism and suspicion of the Jewish opposition, 
but these flashes of unfolding self-revelation are neither so 
numerous nor 50 spontaneous as the sustained personal dis- 
courses of the Fourth gospel ;* the latter suggest the work of a 
writer whose religious presuppositions have led him to isolate 
and expand what was at most a subordinate feature in the 
synoptic tradition of Jesus. 

The influence of this tendency upon the writer’s schematism will be 
clear from a comparison of the following passages :— 


Jesus refers the Samaritan woman Jesus refers the Jews to the 
to the water of eternal life (419. ™ heavenly bread of eternal life (621-35 
οὐ ph διψήσει). οὐ μὴ διψήσει). 

She refers to the ancestral well They refer to the manna which 
from which her fathers had drunk their fathers had eaten (6%). 


(413). 
But the true water of life comes Βιῖΐῖ the true bread of life is Jesus 
from Jesus (412), himself (6). 


* Dr. Rush Rhees, on the other hand, finds the striking monotony of 
the Fourth gospel already present in the conflict-stories of the synoptists 
(JBL., 1898, 87-154). 

34 


520 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


She asks for it (415 δός μοι κτλ.). They ask for it (6% δὸς ἡμῖν a7X.). 
The food of Jesus=obedience to The object of Jesus to execute the 
will of the Father (433), who has sent will of the Father who has sent him 


him. (6°). 

question of disciples (9? pafBel). question of disciples (11° jafBel). 
divine object in disease (9% ἵνα divine object in sickness (11% ἵνα 
φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ). δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾽ αὐτῆ»). 
need of working during the day (95). need of walking during the day (11°). 
intervention of Pharisees (913). intervention of Pharisees (11“*t-), 


Such coincidences (cp. Kreyenbiihl, ii. 39 f.) reveal the dialectic of the 
author, as he brings out the leading themes of his gospel ; he also represents 
Jesus baffling his opponents and playing on the inward meaning until even 
his sympathetic hearers were often puzzled. ‘‘ Jesus uero euangelii quarti 
dialectice disputat, ambigue loquitur, stylo mystico utitur, obscura profert, 
adeo ut uel doctissimi de uero multorum effatorum eius sensu dubii hzreant” 
(Bretschneider, Probadziza, 2).* 


§ 4. Polemical aims.t—(a) One note of the gospel is the 
attempt to correct misapprehensions and exaggerated views of 
John the Baptizer which were current in the Asiatic circles (Ac 
1824-19") of primitive Christianity,{ views which placed him in 
competition with the Lord as a religious authority. John, the 
writer significantly remarks, was not the light (18). His function 
was merely that of a witness or harbinger. He is represented as 


* Bretschneider (p. 25) comments severely upon 2%: ‘‘si intelligis de 
templo uisibili, est uaniloquentia; si intelligis de templo inuisibili, ecclesia, 
est argumentum ineptum, cum ea tum temporis non adesset ; si intelligis de 
resurrectione, etiam hzec futura erat ; si omnino intelligis allegorice, uanum 
et incommodum manet argumentum, guia partim sensus allegoriz Judeis non 
poterat esse liquidus, partim eadem multo maiori effectu propriis dici potuissent 
verbis, non uero ambiguis, uarium sensum admittentibus, igitur ineptis ad 
conuincendum.” 

t ‘ Answers to questions’ put by contemporaries would be a more suitable 
term. In the Fourth gospel we overhear the writer, in the name of the 
church, replying to such questions as these: Is Jesus only one of the zons? 
Is he a vice-god or a higher Logos? Why was Judas admitted to the circle 
of the twelve? Why did not Jesus predict his own resurrection? Was the 
crucifixion foretold in the OT? What is the meaning of eating Christ’s 
flesh and drinking his blood? Why were not the Greeks evangelised by 
Jesus? Why were not the Samaritans evangelised by him? Some of these 
questions suggest cavillers, and others imply puzzled Christians, 

t This trait, already noted by Grotius, Russwurm (Johannes der Donnerer, 
1806), Storr, and others, has been worked out speculatively by Baldensperger, 
followed partly by Wrede (GGA., 1900, 1-26), the latter of whom refers to 
the theory noticed in Siouffi's Ltudes sur la religion des Soubbas ou Sabcens, 
leurs dogmes, leurs meurs (Paris, 18So, pp. 179f.), that the prologue i« 
directed against Sabsean views of the Baptizer. 


POLEMICAL AIMS §31 


explicitly disavowing all messianic claims (12F 32%, cp. 41 1041), 
and even his witness was not the final or highest (535). ‘This 
polemic, however, is at best subordinate, and it is more likely to 
form part of the general anti-Jewish tendency of the gospel than 
to represent a direct allusion to some contemporary sect of 
John’s disciples. (6) Another feature is the traditional antithesis 
of the gospel to Cerinthus, the Jewish gnostic of Alexandria, who 
held that the world was created not by God but by “a certain 
Power far separate from him, distant from that Principality who 
is over the universe, and ignorant of the God who is over all” 
(Iren. adv. Haer. i. 26. 1, contrast Jn 18 etc.), and who taught 
that Christ, the spiritual and unsuffering One, descended upon 
Jesus in the form of a dove at the baptism, wrought miracles and 
proclaimed the unknown Father, and then ere the crucifixion 
withdrew (contrast Jn 115 etc.). The attribution of the Fourth 
gospel to Cerinthus was not such a groundless conjecture as 
modern critics of the Alogi have sometimes made out, for the 
Fourth gospel ignores the birth of Jesus (although 11% was soon 
altered into an allusion to the virgin-birth), and lays stress on 
the Spirit remaining upon him at his baptism (157%), But this 
conjecture was even more impossible than the modern idea that 
it was written by (Kreyenbihl) or for gnostics.* Naturally it 
was more congenial to the latter than the synoptic gospels. It 
was, in fact, its early popularity among gnostic Christians which, 
together with its repudiation by the Alogi, distressed the good 
Irenzeus. But the aversion to gnosticism, which begins with the 
prologue, continues through the whole book, and is only thrown 
into relief by the author’s use of gnostic phrases and formule. ἢ 
The gnostic tendencies which were operating at the time when 
this writing was composed, tended to resolve revelation into a 
process of zons, semi-mythological and semi-metaphysical, by 
means of which God and the world came into relations; they 
further developed an ethical barrenness by their intellectualism. 
Against both of these tendencies the author of the gospel seeks 

* ««Prorsus igitur adsentior Eichhornio (Jutrod. in NT. pt. ii. p. 191) 
profitenti, euangelistam non quidem adversus gnosticos sed in eorum usum 
scripsisse ” (Bretschneider, Prodadiiia, p. 7). On this and on the recent 
attempt of Fries to prove that Cerinthus has interpolated the Fourth gospel, 
as written by John the presbyter originally, see ZB2. 4737-4738. 

+ Cp. Feine, W774. 645f. On the Hermetic mysticism of the pro- 
logue, see Reitzenstein’s Zwed religionsgesch. Fragen (71f.) and Poitmandres 
(244 f.). 


532 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


specially to safeguard his readers. He is also (cp. eg. 161514, 
and above, pp. 187-188) sensitive to the gnostic claim that their 
secret tradition was derived from the apostles themselves, or that 
their teaching was an improvement and a legitimate advance upon 
that of the apostles, who had not always correctly understood 
the Lord (cp. ¢g. Iren. adv. haer. ii. 2, aduersantur traditioni 
dicentes se non solum presbyteris sed etiam apostolis exsist- 
entes sapientiores sinceram inuenisse ueritatem: apostolos 
enim admiscuisse ea que sunt legalia, saluatoris uerbis; also 
ili. 1). 


(i.) The Alogi may have been Monarchians in christology, but their general 
spirit was that of the conservative commonsense people,* who suspected any 
adoption of semi-gnostic ideas and expressions such as the Fourth gospel 
furnished. The simple synoptic account of Jesus was enough for them, and 
their objections to the Fourth gospel were on the score of its theosophical 
traits rather than on account of its historical discrepancies with the earlier 
records, though the latter were not ignored. In spite of the uncertainties 
attaching to the whole question (cp. GHD. i. 239f.), the likelihood is that 
Hippolytus’ Defence of the Gospel according to John and the Apocalypse was 
the source from which the five Heads against Gazus were drawn, and that 
Gaius rejected not only the apocalypse but the Fourth gospel (cp. J. R. 
Harris, Hermas in Arcadia and other Essays, 1896; Bacon, Fourth Gospel, 
231f. The Montanist + exploitation of the Fourth gospel would naturally lead 
Gaius in the ardour of his polemic against Proklus to cut away the feet from 
under the Montanists by denying the apostolic claim of the only gospel to 
which they could appeal. 

(ii.) The dualism between light and darkness is regarded as a cosmic 
antithesis, whose origin the writer never attempts to investigate. His 
interests are not philosophic. The evil one is the prince of darkness, but 
evil-doers (3! 8) are none the less responsible for their actions. It is 
pressing the language of 1° (αὐ things were made by him) to an unreal 
extreme, to infer from it that the Logos originated the natural darkness ; 
the language of the book is permeated by the practical aim of showing how 
the world can be brought from darkness into the light of Christ (so Corssen, 
GGA., 1904, pp. 166f., in opposition to Grill), not by any attempt to prove 
how the darkness originated. 


* In one sense there has been a Johannine problem in the church from the 
beginning ; as soon as the Fourth gospel was placed alongside of the 
synoptists, the divergences were felt. In another sense, the piety of Chris- 
tians has solved the problem; in spite of these divergences, it has been 
sensitive to the real unity between the synoptic and the Johannine Jesus. 
But, as Godet (Eng. tr. i. 159) observes, ‘* philosophy still seeks the synthesis 
of the two Sokrates; theology searches, and will for a long period stil 
continue to search, for that of the two images of the Christ.” 

+ But ch. 21 is not a Montanist appendix (Barns, xp." iv. 533-542). 


RELATION TO SYNOPTISTS 533 


8 5. Relation to the Synoptic Gospels.---Special literature: * A. W. 
P. Moller (de genzt et indolis Ev. Joh. et priorum evv. diversa ratione rite 
defintenda, 1816); Baur, Arzt. Untersuch. tiber die kanon. Englicn (1847), 
pp. 2391. ; Freytag’s Symphonie der Evglien (1863); E. Delon, Ze γόεξέ de 
S. Jean dans ses rapports avec la narration synoptique (1868) ; Holtzmann 
(ZWT., 1869, pp. 62f., 155f., 1875, pp. 448f.); Keim, i. 164f.; J. J. 
Taylor, An attempt to ascertain the character of the Fourth gospel, especially 
tn its relation to the first Three (1870)?; P. Ewald, das Hau/tproblem der 
Evglienfrage (1890); T. R. Birks, Hore Evangelice (1892), pp. 180f ; 
Schlatter (‘die Parallelen in den Worten Jesu bei Joh. u. Matthaus,’ 527. 
ii. 5); Wernle, dze Synoptesche Frage (1899), pp. 234-248; R. Mariano, 
Ure. iv. pp. 81-92 (‘Relazione coi Sinottici’); Loisy, Le guatriéme 
Evangile (1903), pp. 56-76; P. Féret (‘ Le probleme synoptico-Johannique,’ 
Annal. d. Philos. Chrét., 1903, pp. 24-42); O. Holtzmann, Leden Jesu (Eng. 
tr. 1904, pp. 32-46); CQR. (1905), 106-134; Barth, das Johannesevelm u. 
die Syn, Euglien (1905); E. A. Abbott, Dzat. 1665-1874 (invaluable) ; 
Monnier, Za misston hist. de Jésus (1906), 354f.; Zahn, 7VZ. 8 67; W. 
Richmond, Zhe Gospel of the Rejection (a study in the relation of the Fourth 
gospel to the three), 1906; P. W. Schmiedel, das veerte Euglm gegeniiber den 
dreé ersten (1906, Eng. tr. 1908); Ε΄ W. Worsley, The Fourth gospel and 
the Synoptists (1909); Bacon, Fourth gospel in Research and Debate (1910), 


332-384. 


(1) That the Fourth gospel presupposes the general synoptic 
tradition may be taken for granted; the real problem of literary 
criticism is to determine whether it can be shown to have used 
any or all of the synoptic gospels. 

The omissions of synoptic phrases and ideas by Johnt 
include the casting out of devils, diseases like leprosy and 
paralysis (hence om. of terms like καθαρίζω, δαιμονία, λεπρός, 
etc.), Sadducees, publicans, and scribes, with repentance, forgive- 
ness, watchfulness and prayer, sun, cloud, generation, hypocrite 
(hypocrisy), market-place, rich, substance or possessions, vineyard, 
and woe. One class of such omissions is not particularly 
significant, 2.5. the synoptic adverbs for exceedingly (ἐκπερισσῶς, 
λίαν, περισσῶς, and σφόδρα), adultery and adulteress, γυνή (= 
wife), precede (rpo-ayw, -ἔέρχομαι, πορεύομαι), ἱκανός and πόσος, 

* Historical sketches of opinion (foreign) on this problem, in Schweitzer’s 
Von Reimarus zu Wrede, pp. 114-117, 124-126, 217f., etc. In speaking of 
J. Weiss’ Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, he divides and defines the 
course of investigation into the life of Jesus thus: the period inaugurated by 
Strauss, ‘purely historical or purely supernatura] ?’—the period represented 
by the Tiibingen school, ‘synoptic or Johannine ?’—the period inaugurated 
by J. Weiss, ‘ eschatological or non-eschatological ?’ 


t See a carefully annotated and classified list of synoptic terms (¢.e. terms 
used by ali three, as a rule) rarely, if ever, used by John, in Déat, 1672-1696. 


534 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


καταλείπω (=leave), and ἀναγινώσκω (of scripture). More 
important is the substitution, eg., of σημεῖα for δυνάμεις, and 
of παροιμία for παραβολή. This is one outcome of that prag- 
matism which also explains the absence of any allusion to the 
virgin-birth, the temptation, the transfiguration, the agony in 
Gethsemane, etc., as inconsistent with what the writer aimed at 
in delineating the character of Jesus the Logos-Christ. 

The similarities of language between Mk. and Jn. alone are 
both few and, on the whole, insignificant; the occurrence, in 
parallel passages in both, of terms like διακόσιοι and τριακόσιοι, 
θερμαίνομαι, νάρδος πιστικός, (πτύω ἢ), ῥάπισμα, and ὠτάριον, in the 
same sense (cp. also the great multitude, Mk 1237=Jn 129: 15, Mt, 
and Lk. omitting the 6), is hardly of weight enough to float the 
thesis that these indicate a sustained and subtle intention on the 
part of the fourth evangelist to support Mk. against the omissions 
and deviations of Mt. and Lk. (Diat. 1739 f.).* Apart from Mt 
2810=Jn 2017 (my brothers, see above, p. 254), the coincidences 
between Mt. and Jn. are still less remarkable (Dat. 1745-1757). 
Mk. breaks off before the narrative reaches the point where 
Jesus calls the disciples my brothers, and John’s agreements with 
Mt. probably go back to Mk. "In short, the real connection of 
the Fourth gospel with its predecessors lies not in vocabulary 
but in ideas, and falls to be tested, not on stylistic so much as 
on historical and doctrinal grounds. These upon the whole 
support the hypothesis that the author of the Fourth gospel is 
frequently concerned to balance one of the synoptists against 
another as well as to correct all three. At almost every point 
where the orbit of the Fourth gospel coincides with that of the 
synoptic tradition, the former can be shown to represent a more 
developed stage of Christian reflection upon the facts, even 
where traces of a development can already be noted within the 
synoptic gospels themselves (see, e.g., detailed proofs in Wendt, 
pp. 14-48, and E. A. Abbott in Wew World, 1895, pp. 459-483, 
or in £Bi. 1773 f.). 

The only gospel about which there need be any hesitation is that of Lk. 
Here the repeated similarities of style and statement render it a fair question 


whether both gospels do not go back independently to common traditions 
(or sources), or whether the Fourth gospel simply represents in one aspect 


51 cannot see any adequate basis for the idea that (Déat. 1744f.) John 
intends to convey, by his allusions to the beloved disciple, a tacit contrast ta 
the disappointing adherent of Mk 107) (Jesus loved him). 


RELATION TO SYNOPTISTS 535 


the climax of a development which can be traced from Mk. te Lk.* The 
solution lies in a combination of both hypotheses. The Lucan affinities 
of the Fourth gospel do not necessarily imply Syrian Antiocht as the 
locus of the latter (so Zurhellen recently); traditions are not confined by 
geographical boundaries, and the later affinities of Ignatius and Justin Martyr 
are as explicable on the ordinary Ephesian hypothesis. But some of the 
currents of the Lucan and ‘ Johannine’ traditions flowed in all probability 
from Syrian Antioch. This may be admitted, without abandoning the use of 
Luke’s gospel by the author of the Fourth evangelist. The two gospels are 
almost contemporary ; they breathe often the same atmosphere of religious 
thought andtendency. But John corrects Luke ; his gospel is not a complete 
account of Jesus, he admits, but he seeks to lay a deeper and more mystical 
basis for faith. Both have a remarkable common element in their vocabulary 
(cp. Gaussen in 7715. ix. 562-568) ; ¢.g. ἀπόκρισις, of Jesus (Lk 24 20%, cp. 
Jn 19°); βάπτειν (Lk 16%, Jn 13%) 5 $ γείτων (Lk 1413 15% 9, Jn 98) ; διατρίβειν 
(intrans.=stay, Ac 12), 15%, Jn 37°); éxudoocew (Lk 79%, Jn 11? 128 
13°); évOdde=hither (Ac 25!, Jn 4%); κῆπος (Lk 1319, Jn 18! etc.); 
xéArros=bosom or breast (Lk 167, Jn 138 13°); νεύειν (Ac 24), Jn 13%) ; 
ὁμοῦ (Ac 2}, Jn 4% etc.) ; προδραμεῖν (Lk 19%, Jn 204); πώποτε (Lk 1989, Jn 
18 etc.) ; o7da (Ac 3 513, Jn 52 10%), and φρέαρ (Lk 145, Jn 411-12).8 

In one class of passages some special trait of Lk. has been adopted and 
adapted by the Fourth evangelist ; ¢.g. 3!=Jn 11% (is John the Christ ?), 
4°=Jn 16% (the devil ruler of this world), 47-3°=Jn 859 (Jesus eluding a 
crowd), 68=Jn 255 (the divine insight of Jesus), 72=Jn 447, 163°-81=Jn 539. 47 
1210-11, 1988-99 = Jn 1219. 2134 =Jn Blt, 223=Jn 13% 37, 228=Jn 211-17, 2250 — 
Jn 18”, 23=Jn 19°" ; both use ὁ κύριος of Jesus in narrative ; both apply 
the phrase son of Joseph to Jesus (47%=Jn τ 6%) ; both separate the idea of 
Mt 10% from that of Mt τοῦϑ 38 (cp. Lk 6® and 124=Jn 13167 and 1514-15. 20 
where /rzends is applied by Jesus in Lk. and Jn. alone to the disciples). 
There is an increasing tendency in both to describe the relation of Jesus to 
God as that of the Son to the Father, to limit God’s fatherhood to Christians, 
to emphasise the Spirit, and to speak of Jesus as ὁ σωτήρ who brings 


* See especially Holtzmann and Jacobsen (of. cz¢. pp. 46f.) on this point, 
with P. Feine’s Vorkanonische Ueberlieferung, pp. 133-136, and above, pp. 
268, 274. 

+ Kreyenbiihl uses these and other traits to further his hypothesis that the 
Fourth gospel was written by Menander of Antioch and afterwards rescued 
from the gnostics by the church, which re-edited it for ecclesiastical purposes. 
But Menander as an author is otherwise unknown; Kreyenbiihl’s estimate 
of gnosticism is too ideal, and the theory involves a recourse to arbitrary 
exegesis in general. 

t The sense in Apoc 19" is different (=‘ dyed’), as is the case with φρέαρ 
also (9°). 

ὃ ἑλκύειν, ἐξηγεῖσθαι, σύρειν, and σχοινίον are used in totally different 
senses by both writers, and συντίθεσθαι in different constructions ; terms like 
πλευρά, Ἑλληνιστί, ἀριστᾶν, and ξωννύναι (both latter in Jn 21) are too casual 
and minor to deserve notice, while the uncertainty about Lk 24” prevents 
ὀθόνια (Jn 19” etc.) being reckoned, 


536 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


τὴν σωτηρίαν. Both have Samaritan-stories and stories about Martha and 
Mary; both agree, in opposition to Mk. and Mt., in placing the prediction 
of Peter’s denial during the last supper, and the denial itself previous to the 
violence done to Jesus in the judgment-hall ; both also note a triple (Lk 23* 
14, 22 τὸ τρίτον =Jo 18% 19* δ) vindication of Jesus by Pilate. 

There are further traces of more or less conscious correction on the part 
of the Fourth evangelist : thus 13? is a correction * of Lk 22%; the discourse 
on humble, mutual service corresponds to the Lucan narrative, and some 
references in the passion narrative (¢.g. Annas and Kaiaphas) betray the 
same atmosphere, but in the latter narrative and in the resurrection-stories 
the motive of correction is more audible. Thus the appearance on the 
evening of the resurrection-day in the Fourth gospel (20!) tallies with that 
recorded by Lk 24%*49 in three points: ¢ (a) the sudden appearance in the 
midst, (4) the showing of the body (hands and feet, Lk. ; hands and side, 
Jn.), and (c) the reference to forgiveness. John, however, changes the 
superstitious terror of the audience (the ten disciples, not, as in Lk., the 
eleven disciples and their companions) into a glad (16% 3) recognition, 
and makes them receive the Spirit at once instead of waiting for it. This 
latter point is significant.$ In the Fourth gospel the ascension takes 
place on the day of the resurrection; Jesus then comes (20,5), as he 
had promised, back to his disciples, and breathes on them (not sends to 
them) the holy Spirit, which he had also promised (157° 167). This is the 
real παρούσια of the Fourth gospel, and after 20%-*° there is no word of any 
subsequent departure any more than in Mt 28. According to Lk 24 and Jn 20, 
the disciples never leave Jerusalem ; Galilean appearances of the risen Jesus 
are definitely excluded. The redactor of Jn 21 seeks to harmonise the two 
lines of tradition by appending a final Galilean vision, drawn either from the 
Lucan 5111 or from a common tradition, The revelation or recognition of 
Jesus ἐν τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου (Lk 24°), and the eating of fish by Jesus in 
presence of the disciples (Lk 245%), reappear in Jn 21" in altered form ; 
here Jesus is recognised before the meal (of which he does not partake), 
and the meal consists of bread and fish. This suggests ‘‘that there may 
have been various traditions combining a literal and a symbolical meaning (1) 
about the catching of fish, (2) about a Eucharistic meal (after the resurrection) 


* Bacon (Fourth Gospel, pp. 376 f.) even takes 857 as a repudiation of Lk 
3? and as representing the older Palestinian view, which has a better chance 
of being historical. Westberg (Bib/ische Chronologie nach Flavius Josephus 
und das Todesjahr Jesus, 1910, pp. 86f.) also defends this tradition on the 
ground that Jesus was really born in 12 B.c., and that Luke confused the 
consulate of Quirinius with his governorship over Judea. 

+ Four, if καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς" εἰρήνη ὑμῖν is inserted after αὐτῶν in Lk 243. 

t The characteristic standpoint of the Fourth gospel is not the yearning 
for a return of Jesus the messiah to finish his work: /¢ ἐς finished (Jn 19”). 
The prophetic and eschatological element in the last supper is obliterated, in 
order to make it a feast of love and love’s duties among Christians. It is the 
intensity of present communion with the living Lord in the Spirit which 
dominates the Fourth gospel and determines many of its departures from the 
Synoptic tradition (see below). 


RELATION TO SYNOPTISTS 537 


in which fish formed a part ” (Dzat. 2483a).* In the Lucan story of 24%" 
the general permission to handle (W\ag¢joaré με καὶ ἴδετε) precedes the 
further proof (eating) of the reality of the resurrection-body ; whereas in the 
Fourth gospel, where the same order occurs (20™ 21), only Thomas is 
bidden handle the body of Jesus; and Jesus, in the sequel, distributes the 
food instead of eating it (see above, p. 275). 

The apocalyptic element, which almost disappears in the Fourth gospel, 
had already been diminished in Lk. (note, ¢.g., the significant change in 229 
from Mk 14°?=Mt 26%; the Jewish authorities, unlike Simeon, 27°: 80. are to 
die without seeing the Christ), but the Fourth evangelist transcends it as part 
and parcel of the Jewish messianism which he and his age felt to be no longer 
adequate to the Christian consciousness of the day. Traces of it still occur, 
e.g., in 57°-*8 (which cannot be eliminated as a later interpolation), just as the 
older view of Jesus’ redemptive function incidentally recurs in 1°, but such 
features do little more than denote the transition from the old to the new, and 
the characteristic aims of the author lie elsewhere, in a conception of Jesus 
for which he found the Logos-idea, not the messianic idea, to be the most 
effective category. This process had been already anticipated not only by Paul, 
but by the authors of Ephesians and Hebrews in their own way, without 
detriment to the supreme significance of Jesus Christ to the Christian. The 
Fourth evangelist, however, is less interested in the cosmological or 
typological significance of Jesus than his predecessors on this line, and 
generally he develops an independent view of his own, which is more 
thoroughly dominated by the set and spirit of the Logos-idea, 


(2) Not merely on the content but on the position of the 
Baptist’s ministry, the Fourth gospel is at issue with the synoptic 
tradition. The latter consistently defers the beginning of Christ’s 
public ministry till the Baptist had been arrested (Mk 114-15, 
Lk 318-21 = Mt 412), as is the case with Ac 10%” 12%f 194. The 
Fourth gospel makes the two ministries overlap (Jn 32230 41-2), 
and does so, not from any naive forgetfulness of memory on the 
part of an old disciple, but in order to emphasise the superiority 
of Jesus to John; the latter recognises and confesses publicly 
the messianic claim of Jesus from the very outset. The develop- 
ment of the synoptic tradition in Mt. and Lk., which tends to 
heighten and ante-date the Baptist’s consciousness of Jesus’ 
significance, is thus brought to a climax. It is in keeping with 
this view, which knows (in contrast to the original tradition) of 
no secrecy upon the messianic authority of Jesus, that his full 
authority as God’s messiah is seen from the outset by his 


* There is no mysterious significance in the ἔρχεται of ν.}8, however ; 
it goes with the following verb, as in 615 and 12%. The insertion of 
εὐχαριστήσας by SyrS™ and D in Jn 213%, if not a restoration of the original 
text, at least points to the early prevalence of this eucharistic conception of 
the scene. 


538 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


disciples and by others. Here, again, the tendency already 
present, ¢.g., in Mt. (pp. 252, 259), is fully operative. 


Some further instances of this principle may be noted. (a) The first twe 
σημεῖα * are followed by no address ; the fourth and fifth, which complete the 
Galilean cycle, lead up to a discussion which, however, attaches only to the 
fourth. The two Jerusalem-cnyeta, on the other hand, furnish the situation 
for long harangues, while the seventh (in Judea) not only is accompanied by 
an announcement of religious truth, but forms the pivot for the closing scenes 
in Jerusalem. Thus the only Galilean teaching is in 67" ; but although part 
of it is placed in the synagogue at Kapharnaum, even this is a debate with 
the Jews which might as well have occurred at Jerusalem; there is barely a 
trace of the characteristic Galilean gospel as that is preserved in the synoptic 
gospels. 

(6) An equally secondary trait lies in 2'-3, where an original saying is 
placed in a setting which has been transposed (so, ¢.g., among most recent 
writers, J. Réville, pp. 137 f. ; Drummond, 61; J. Weiss, Loisy, and Oesterley 
in DCG. ii. 712f.) from its historical site f in the synoptic tradition and re- 
cast for special reasons. According to the Fourth gospel, the cleansing of 
the temple took place on the occasion of the first and early visit paid by Jesus 
to Jerusalem, and was the act not of messianic authority but of a prophetic or 
reforming zeal ᾧ (so, ¢.g., recently Wernle, Sym. Frage, 240; Stanton, DB. 
ii. 245; and Sanday, zdzd. 613; after Beyschlag, xr Johann. Frage, 83f.; 
k. H. Hutton, Zheological Essays, 222f.; A. B. Bruce, Azngdom of God, 
306f.). In the synoptic tradition it brings the enmity of the scribes and 
priests to a head (Mk 11-18 27); it is the natural climax of his ministry, a 
supreme effort to assert the rights of God in the headquarters of the nation, 
and his subsequent fate is the natural outcome of the deed. In the Fourth 
gospel the act is at once ante-dated and minimised. The saying connected 
with it is rightly reproduced, as is the connection of the incident with the 
passover. But the daring assertion of authority produces no impression 
beyond a mild remonstrance (2.8, reproduced from the synoptic tradition, 
Mk 11= Mt 21%, which also connected this with a defence of its legitimacy) ; 
the authorities do not take action. Possibly, however, the writer simply 
introduced the incident at this point in order to emphasise the saying as a 
proof that Jesus foresaw his death and resurrection from the very beginning. 
He has thus reset the incident, under the influence of his pragmatism. On 
the one hand, he found sufficient occasion in the Lazarus-miracle for the 
arrest of Jesus and the enmity of the authorities; on the other hand, he 
considered that the first public visit of Jesus to Jerusalem must have been 
marked by an open assertion of his divine authority. 

(c) Another case of a synoptic saying being misplaced occurs in 4“, but 


* Even in the second, which is a variant of Mt 8515: ΓᾺῸ γ1}:10. faith is (as 
usual in this gospel) the result of the miracle, not, as in the synoptic tradition, 
the indispensable condition of help or healing. 

¢ Tatian also follows the synoptic order. 

t This is usually associated with the admission that the act might have 
been repeated ; but if not, that the Johannine chronology is preferable. 


RELATION TO SYNOPTISTS §39 


the allusion in 4% refers back to 2! not to Mt 853=Lk 721 as the second 
miracle ; the story (445: 53) is a heightened form of the Matthzan narrative, 
just as 51“ and 61-15 16-21 are of the synoptic originals. 6 is a fresh instance 
of misplacement (cp. Mk 68=Mt 13°=Lk 4”; for Marcion’s treatment of 
the story, see Hilgenfeld in ZW7., 1902, 127-144), while in 67-7, as in 
12‘, there is a distinct tendency to exculpate the twelve or Peter (see the 
synoptic parallels) at the expense of Judas Iskariot. 

(4) The Lazarus-miracle (111") is exceptional in several respects. In the 
synoptic stories of people being raised by Jesus from the dead, the miracle 
takes place naturally ; the opportunity is furnished, and Jesus takes advantage 
of it. Here he consciously delays his arrival not only until the dead person is 
buried, but until the process of physical corruption has set in. The miracle is 
thus rendered more wonderful, in comparison with the synoptic stories, where 
Jesus only raises the unburied (and indeed those who have just died), and 
where he never arranges for any heightening of the effect. It is an illustration 
of the profound truth that Jesus is the source of life eternal in a dead world, 
and that the resurrection is not, as the popular faith of the church imagined 
(11%), something which takes place at the last day, but the reception of Christ’s 
living Spirit: 7 am the resurrection and the life, he who believes on me, 
though he were dead, shall live, and no one who lives and believes on me shall 
ever die. Faith in the living Christ, as Paul had taught in his own way, 
meant a risen life independent of physical changes in the future. Whether 
more than this religious motive, operating on the Lucan material, is necessary 
to explain the story, remains one of the historical problems of the gospel (cp. 
A. E. Brooke in Cambridge Biblical Essays, 313f.). It is just conceivable 
that the incident failed for some reason to be included by the synoptic gospels ; 
their silence would not by itself be absolutely conclusive against the historicity. 
The difficulty is to give any adequate psychological reason why so stupendous 
and critical an episode (witnessed ex hyfothest by all the disciples) should 
have failed to win a place in the synoptic tradition, even when that tradition 
is admitted to be incomplete at certain points, and this difficulty is heightened 
by the obvious motives of the writer, who makes this miracle the pivot of the 
final Jewish attack on Jesus, instead of the purging of the temple, which he 
transfers to the beginning of the ministry. ‘* The whole evidence points 
strongly to the conclusion that the evangelist, using some tradition to us 
unknown and the synoptic material mentioned, elaborated them freely into a 
narrative designed to be at once: (a) an astounding manifestation of the 
Logos-Christ, (4) a pictorial setting forth of the spiritual truth of Christ as 
Life, (c) a prophetic prefiguration of the death and resurrection of Jesus, as 
shown by the facts that the names Jesus and Lazarus have the same meaning, 
and that the narrative forms a transition to the final struggle and to death ” 
(Forbes, p. 273). It may be a miracle which like that of Mk 11! (see pp. 
225, 236) has grown up* mainly out of a parable—in this case the parable 
of Lazarus (Lk 161%), which closes (16778!) with a passage (irrelevant to the 
original motive of the story) asserting that not even the witness of one risen 


* With hints from other synoptic traditions, e.g. the raising of the widow’s 
son at Nain (Lk 7"""’, performed, like the raising of Lazarus, before a large 
crowd). ᾿ 


540 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


from the dead would avail to produce repentance and faith in those wh 
reject the testimony of the OT revelation (Lk 16%=Jn 54%). What historical 
nucleus lies behind the story, it is no longer possible to ascertain. The 
allegorical or symbolical ends of the writer are the outstanding feature (cp. 
Bretschneider’s Prodadilia, p. 79, ‘‘tota igitur narratio conscripta est ut 
consilio dogmatico inseruiret, scl. ut doceret exemplo clarissimo, in [658 
habitasse λόγον diuinum. Dogmaticum igitur potius hic egit scriptor, quam 
historicum”). They indicate that the story may be another instance of what 
Origen in his commentary called the preservation of spiritual truth in bodily 
inaccuracy (σωζομένου πολλάκις τοῦ ἀληθοῦς πνευματικοῦ ἐν TH σωματικῷ ὡς 
ἂν εἴποι τις ψευδεῖ); so, ¢g., Abbott* (Zé2., 1804f., 2744-2751), Loisy, 
Burkitt (Zransmdsston, pp. 221f.), Forbes, E. F. Scott (of. cét. 37f.), 
Heitmiiller, and Bacon (7he Fourth Gospel, 345 f.). 

(e) The story in 121 ὃ has been changed from after (Mk., Mt.) to before 
the entry, but the further question of its relation to Lk 7%, or even of the 
relation between the latter and the Marcan (Matthean) parallel, remains 
another of the enigmas of gospel-criticism, which can hardly be solved along 
the lines of purely literary investigation. f 

(3) The day is now over, or almost over, when the Fourth 
gospel and the synoptists could be played off against each other 
in a series of rigid antitheses, as though the one were a matter- 
of-fact and homogeneous chronicle and the other a spiritual 
reading of the earlier tradition. The problem is too delicate 
and complex for such crude methods. Recent criticism of the 
synoptic gospels has brought them nearer to the Fourth gospel. 
It has revealed not simply variant traditions, some of which re- 
appear in the Fourth gospel, but chronological gaps, and above 
all the operation of tendencies which exercise a creative as well 
as a moulding pressure upon the tradition. The Fourth gospel 
presents, in one aspect, a further and special phase of the 
tendency to interpret and reflect upon the evangelic traditions in 
the light of the later Christian conciousness.) The synoptic 
gospels are not objective chronicles, relating the, incidents and 
sayings of which the Fourth gospel provides the spiritual inter- 
pretation. In Mark, especially, the presence of such an inter- 
pretation has now been proved (pp. 226f.); and this is all the 
more significant, since the Fourth gospel is recognised upon all 
hands to go back ultimately to the Marcan tradition rather than 


* Cp. also Diat. 1528 f. (‘‘ even though we may be obliged to reject some of 
the details of the Raising of Lazarus as unhistorical, we may be able to accept 
the fact that our Lord did occasionally restore to life those who would ordin- 
arily be described as ‘dead’”’). 

+ “* Der Weg von Mk. und Lk. aus zu Joh. erscheint fast unmoglich lang 
ohne Zuhilfnahme einer Sondertradition ” (Wernle, p. 241). 


RELATION TO SYNOPTISTS 541 


to the Matthzan or to the Lucan. The synoptics, as weil as 
the Fourth gospel, were written ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. The motto 
of Jn 20%! would apply to all the three, but in a special sense 
to Mark; for, in spite of the difference of angle from which 
Mark and John view the messianic dignity of Jesus, both aim 
at demonstrating that he was ‘he Son of God (see p. 234). 


The most important aspect of this relationship is historical. There is good 
evidence to show that Jesus had a ministry in Judea, during which he visited 
Jerusalem, prior to his final visit, and that the narrative of the Fourth 
gospel on this point goes back to a nucleus of primitive tradition from 
which they have been worked up.* The synoptic tradition really is 
derived from Mk.’s scheme, which is admittedly far from exhaustive, and 
even in it there are traces which corroborate the view elaborated in the 
Fourth gospel. Thus the temptation-stories clearly presuppose a Jerusalem 
and Judean mission larger than the synoptists themselves suggest ; and even 
if Mt 23°7 =Lk 1333. is a quotation, stil] the fact that it was attributed to 
Jesus seems to imply more than a mere willingness or desire to have come 
to Jerusalem previously. Similarly the journey through Samaria to Jerusalem 
in Lk g®!°5, though editorially relegated to the last visit on the Marcan 
scheme (10'), is followed by a number of incidents which suggest that it 
could not have originally belonged to that visit. On any view of the 
ministry of Jesus, his public mission must have lasted more than twelve 
months, so that ample room is left for at least one visit to celebrate the 
passover. It is needless to postulate that he must have been accompanied 
by his disciples on such an occasion, and their absence may account for the 
early apostolic silence on the Judean ministry. No stress can be laid on the 
fact that when Jesus finally reached Jerusalem, he was well-known to a 
number of people not only in Bethany but in the capital ; this does not neces- 
sarily imply more than visits to the passover prior to his public ministry. 
Nor do the discussions with the scribes and Pharisees involve a Jerusalemite 
locus. The significant data, which seem to indicate that the tradition of at 
least one intermediate visit to Jerusalem has been almost obliterated in 
the synoptic tradition, occur in (i.) the temptation-story, which requires 
no comment, and (ii.) in Lk 9°", the contents of which (pp. 273 f.) 
cannot be arranged within the limits of the last journey to Jerusalem. 
Thus 10! (dispatch of the seventy, or the seventy-two, els πᾶσαν πόλιν καὶ 
τόπον οὗ ἤμελλεν αὐτὸς ἔρχεσθαι), when taken with 1017, cannot denote the 
dispatch of the disciples as harbingers of Jesus on the route (as in 9517). 
The subsequent incidents are for the most part undated or vaguely set; 
some imply Jerusalem (11° etc.), others Galilee (13%! etc.), others Samaria. 


*Cp. ¢.g. Bleek (/W7. 8 71), Wendt (p. 12): ‘‘there is nothing to 
justify us in refusing to acknowledge that Jesus may really have made several 
visits to Jerusalem,” and J. Weiss in his review of Spitta’s Strezt/ragen (TLZ., 
1909, 460 f.) and in die Aufgaben d. NT Wissenschaft (p. 44): ‘* Was lasst 
sich sachlich gegen eine langere Wirksamkeit, gegen ein Wirken auch in 
Jerusalem einwenden?” Compare the discussion by A, E. Brooke in 
Cambridge Biblical Essays (1909), pp. 296 1. 


542 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 

But in 17!" the incident presupposes a journey from Jerusalem,® as is still 
clear from 17, where Luke has overlaid the original (kal αὐτὸς διήρχετο 
διὰ μέσον Σαμαρείας καὶ Τ'αλιλαίας) with the pragmatic heading, καὶ ἐγένετο 


ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι εἰς ᾿ΙἹερουσαλήμ (951 1433). 


(iii.) The lament over Jerusalem. 


“Ιερουσαλήμ' Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείν- 
ουὐσα τοὺς προφήτας καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα 
τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτὴν, ποσάκις 
ἠθέλησα ἐπισυναγαγεῖν τὰ τέκνα σου, 
ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις ἐπισυνάγει τὰ νοσσία 
αὐτῆς ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελ- 
ἡσατε" ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν 
[ἔρημος5]" λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ με 
ἴδητε am’ ἄρτι ἕως ἂν εἴπητε, εὐλογη- 
μένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου. 


Lk 13% 

“Ιερουσαλὴμ'΄ Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείν- 
ουσα τοὺς προφήτας καὶ λιθοβολοῦσιι 
τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν, ποσάκις 
ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι τὰ τέκνα cov, ὃν 
τρόπον ὄρνιξ τὴν ἑαυτῆς νοσσιὰν ὑπὸ 
τὰς πτέρνγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε" ἰδοὺ 
ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν" λέγω [δὲ] 
ὑμῖν [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ ἴδητε με ἕως ἥξει 
ὅτε εἴπητε, εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν 
ὀνόματι κυρίου. 


The two versions are practically identical, t whereas Luke departs from Mt. 
emphatically in the context. This confirms the view (p. 197) that the saying 
belonged to Q or the apostolic source, which therefore reflected a tradition that 
Jesus had appealed to Jerusalem prior to his last visit. The latter interpreta- 
tion implies that Jesus either spoke the words as they stand, or, at any rate, the 
nucleus (so Merx) of the quotation (see above, pp. 26, 33); and, in spite of 
scepticism to the contrary, this hypothesis has much in its favour. Unless 
on ὦ priori grounds one is prepared to defend the synoptic chronology at all 
costs, a saying like this must be fairly allowed to have some weight in 
deciding the question of the visits paid by Jesus to the capital. The plain 
inference to be drawn from the passage is either (a) that it was spoken as a 
farewell word afler some visit (or, visits) to the capital during which Jesus 
had vainly endeavoured to win over the citizens to his gospel,t or (4) that 
Mt. has correctly placed it (see above, p. 195). In either case, it betrays the 
fact that Jesus had exercised a ministry of some kind in Jerusalem prior to 
his final entry. ‘‘The words have no meaning whatever in Luke, who puts 
them into the mouth of Jesus before he had even seen Jerusalem during his 
public ministry (13°4); and even from the better arrangement of Matthew 
(2337) it is unintelligible how Jesus, after a single residence of a few days in 
Jerusalem, could found his reproaches on multiplied efforts to win over its 
inhabitants to his cause. This whole apostrophe of Jesus has so original a 


* To Nazareth, where he was rejected (J. F. Blair, Apostolic Gospel, pp. 
108 f.)? 

+ Ιερουσαλήμ occurs only here in Mt. The significance of the variant 
forms ἹἹερουσαλήμ and Ιεροσόλυμα, especially in Lk., is discussed by 
R. Schiitz in ZVW., 1910, 169-187. 

1 So, e.g., Spitta (Streztfragen, pp. 63 f.) and Allen (A/atthew, p. 251): 
‘The words seem to be a fragment belonging to an earlier period of the 
ministry, when Christ was leaving Jerusalem for the last time before His 
triumphal entry. We must imagine a controversy with the Jews similar vw 
that recorded in S, John 107,” 


RELATION TO SYNOPTISTS 43 


character, that it is difficult to believe it incorrectly assigned to him; hence, 
to explain its existence, we must suppose a series of earlier residences in 
Jerusalem, such as those recorded by the fourth Evangelist” (Strauss, 
Ρ. 271).* This supposition has several items in its favour. Whatever 
be the reason for the synoptic silence on a Judean ministry (or, for the 
matter of that, on the mission to Chorazin and Bethsaida, Mt 1172=Lk 10%), Ὁ 
once the erroneous idea of a ministry limited to twelve months is abandoned, 
the general probability is that during his ministry to the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel, Jesus would not ignore the capital. Unless the accuracy and 
adequacy of synoptic chronology are to be made a critical dogma,—and few will 
admit this, at the present day,—there is an ὦ 2γ2ογΖ likelihood that the Fourth 
gospel may after all represent an aspect of the activity of Jesus which was 
overlooked in the Marcan scheme. This does not imply that the festivals- 
programme of the Fourth gospel is superior to the outline of the synoptic 
tradition, or even that the two can be harmonised. The author of the 
Fourth gospel, with his predilection for displaying the religion of Jesus in 
contrast to Jewish theories and objections, naturally chose Jerusalem as the 
locus for his debates; the simpler Galilean preaching did not interest him. 
But, in view of the general probabilities and of the occasional indications 
preserved in the synoptic tradition itself,t it is arbitrary to deny outright that 
he may have had some traditional justification on which to rear his super- 
structure. The synoptic scheme rests ultimately upon a single line of 
historical tradition, and the synoptists themselves, especially Mt. and Lk., 
not only amplify the earlier scheme by material which is assigned in part to 
extra-Galilean situations, but even contain indications of a Judean mission. 
Furthermore, as Weizsicker§ points out (p. 174), had the Fourth evangelist 
possessed simply the synoptic tradition, and had he had no other aim than to 
set forth his own idea of Jesus, there was no obvious reason why he should 


* The rather forced alternative is to conjecture (a) that Jesus spoke, or 
was simply made by the evangelists to speak, in the name of the divine 
Sophia, so that the πόσακις «rd. would be read in the sense of the preceding 
Mt 23* (2.4. attempts through the disciples or apostles), or (6) that τέκρα 
lep. is equivalent to Jews in general. 

Τ Bethsaida falls within the purview of the Fourth gospel. 

$ The reception of Jesus in Mk 111" and the saying in Mk 14“ may both 
imply a longer connection between Jesus and Jerusalem than the synoptic 
scheme allows for. Cp. also Mk 12%, Lk το 20! 2157 225%, Wellhausen 
(on Mk 117°) recognises that the data of the last visit imply a longer con- 
nection with Jerusalem than the Marcan week accounts for; but, as he 
refuses to admit any prior connection with Jerusalem, he feels obliged to 
throw over the Marcan schematism. 

§ ‘‘ Wenn er aber auch schon friiher Jesus in Jerusalem auftreten lasst, 
so lag dafiir iiberall keine Nothigung in seiner Tendenz. Es kann dies kaum 
aus einem anderen Grunde, als dem einer eigenen Kunde geschehen sein. 
Ebenso verhadlt es sich mit den eigenthiimlichen Wandererzadhlungen des 
Evglms . . . Wenn er Geschichten berichtet, die nicht aus den Synoptikern 
genommen sind, so liegt auch hier die Erklarung am nachsten, dass er dies- 
selben aus eigener Ueberlieferung hatte” ( Untersuchungen, 174f., cp. 328 f.). 


544 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


introduce earlier Judean visits; the mere desire to exhibit Jesus on the 
prophetic stage of messiah’s activity does not adequately account for the 
particular form of the Fourth gospel’s tradition. The conclusion * therefore 
is that the material incorporated by Matthew, and especially by Luke, pre- 
supposed at least one visit to Jerusalem prior to the final entry, but that both 
Matthew and Luke, adhering to the Marcan chronology, fused the incidents 
of this visit with the final visit. 

(iv.) Zhe date of the Crucifixion.—The primary tradition (Mk 14)?= 
Mt 263-5) expressly dates the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, 
from which it follows (cp. Mt 278?) that Jesus was crucified before the pass- 
over. This is the standpoint of the Fourth gospel (e.g. 13! 18%) and of 
the gospel of Peter (1° crucifixion mpd μιᾶς τῶν ἀζύμων, τῆς ἑορτῆς αὐτῶν), 
possibly even of Paul (1 Co 578 15%): it was adopted independently by the 
Quartodecimans during the controversy which broke out in the second 
century (cp. Drummond, pp. 444f. ; Zahn’s Forschungen, iv. 283f.; GHD. 
i. 173f.3; Preuschen in PAZ. xiv. 725f., and Bacon, Fourth Gospel in 
esearch and Debate, 1910, 413f.). In the synoptic gospels,t+ however, 
this tradition has been overlaid by another (Mk 1412 = Mt 26! =Lk 227%), 
which made the last supper synchronous with, instead of prior to, the Jewish 
passover. But that Jesus died on Nisan 15, the feast day, is unlikely, as 
work was going on (Mk 1574, Lk 2355) and arms were being carried (Mk 
1451 etc.), both of which, as well as a meeting of the Sandedrin, were strictly 
prohibited on the feast day. Some of the details preserved by the synoptic 
gospels about what happened on the day of the crucifixion and the day after 
tally, in fact, with the primary tradition, and are inconsistent with the special 
identification of the last supper and the passover. The improbabilities 
of the latter view have led to a widespread agreement among modern critics 
that the former tradition is the older and more reliable ; so, ¢.g., C. H. Turner 
(DB. i. 411), Sanday (DA. ii. 633f.), Wellhausen (on Mk 12? ‘ man hat 
richtig erkannt, das die hier vorliegende Zeitrechnung der gewohnlichen 
synoptischen widerspreche, und richtig geurteilt, dass sie die alte sei und 
noch im vierten Evangelium befolgt werde”),¢ O. Holtzmann (Leben Jesu, ch. 
xiii. ; ZN W., 1904, 89-120), Spitta (die Urchrist. Trad. tiber Ursprung und 
Sind des Abendm., 1893, 205-237), J. Weiss, Kattenbusch (Chréstliche Welt, 
1895, 317f., 331f.), Wendt, von Dobschiitz (Probleme, 17), Preuschen 
(ZNW., 1904, pp. 14f.), Bousset (Jesus, Eng. tr. 19), Heitmiiller, Bacon, 
F. M. Hitchcock (DCG. i. 414f.), Westberg (of. εἴ. 130f.), etc. On this 
view, the synoptic gospels are inconsistent with themselves, and the Fourth 
gospel intervenes in support of the better tradition. The recognition of this 
has important bearings on the whole question of early Christian tradition, 
for if, in one case, the typological significance of an event is proved to be 


* This has been urged from Schleiermacher downwards. 

+ Later Jewish writers, who seem to contradict the synoptic chronology, 
were often tempted to idealise the past by reading back into this period 
later customs and ideas (cp. N. Schmidt, /BZ., 1891, pp. 6f.). 

+ Also on John 19%! (‘Wenn Jesus nach Joa wirklich am Tage vor dem 
Pascha gestorben ist, so kann das nicht auf Tendenz beruhen, sondern nui 
auf den alten Tradition, die auch bei Markus noch durchschimmert ’). 


RELATION TO SYNOPTISTS 545 


derived from the event, there is a probability that in other cases an incident 
is not to be dismissed as unhistorical simply because it lends itself to a. 
religious application or moral, The correctness of the Johannine tradition 
is corroborated* by the likelihood that Luke (22'6) preserves a saying 
which seems to show that when Jesus ate his last meal with the disciples, 
he knew that he would not live to celebrate the passover that year with them. 
He had earnestly hoped to do so; ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα (1.6. 
this year’s festival) φαγεῖν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν. But he now knew 
this hope was to be disappointed. He wastodie ere then. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, 
ὅτι οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἕως ὅτου πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. This implies 
that the Lord’s supper was eaten prior to the passover ; the words are not a 
paschal reference. 

Repeated efforts have been made (a) to harmonise the synoptic and 
Johannine traditions as they lie before us,t or (δ) to explain the origin of the 
synoptic technical error; the former by identifying, ¢.g., the supper of Jesus 
with the Chagigah or the Kiddusch (G. H. Box, /7S., 1902, 357f.), the 
latter by assuming a primitive confusion (due originally to the editor of the 
second gospel ἢ) t in the Marcan chronology of 14! 17 which underlies Mt. and 
Lk., or elsewhere (good summary in DCG. i. 414f.; cp. also Abbott’s 
Diat, 1289f.). Chwolson, the rabbinic expert, in the second edition (1908) 
of his Zetzte Passamahl Christi (cp. Monatsschrift fiir Gesch. u. Wiss. d. 
Judentums, 1893, 537f., and ZWT., 1895, 335-378), holding that Jesus was 
crucified on Nisan 14, explains that, as the passover fell on a Friday, the 
lamb could be slain and eaten on Nisan 13, and that the synoptic error is due 
to a misinterpretation of xnd57 ‘Dp xd"3a in the Aramaic original of Mt 26”, 
which could be rendered (1) rightly, ‘‘day before paschal day,” 2.4. Nisan 13, 
(2) ‘day before paschal-feast,’ 2.4. Nisan 14, or (3) ‘ first day of paschal feast,’ 
#.e. of unleavened bread. If this explanation can be transferred to Mk 14” 
(cp. Lambert in /7S., 1903, 184f., and Allen’s Matthew, pp. 269-274), the 
preliminary error is explicable. Whether or not the last supper was meant 
to be a sort of (anticipated?) paschal meal, it was probably not celebrated on 
the regular day, though the inferior tradition of the synoptists arose from the 
idea that it was the paschal supper. Another reconstruction of the original 
source would be non ΟΡ (=before the passover) read as nd|7 O7p2 (=on the 
first day of the passover) in the Hebrew primitive gospel (Resch, Para//el- 
texte su L. 615 f., cp. Briggs, Mew Light, pp. 56-63). 

(v.) The argument from some minor points is significant, but is not to be 
pressed, in the present state of our knowledge. Thus (2) Mk 14=Mt 4" 
implies an earlier ministry in Judea, but it could not have been of the 
character described in the Fourth gospel. (6) The strongly attested ν.]. 
"Tovdalas in Lk 4“, which has every appearance of being original, might be 
taken in its Lucan sense as an equivalent for Palestine, #.¢. including, not 


*Cp. G. H. Box (Cre#tical Review, 1903, 32-34), Brooke and Burkitt in 
JTS., 1908, 569-571, Askwith, and Harnack in 7ZZ., 1909, 49-50. 

+ So, recently, A. Wright (Mew Zestament Problems, pp. 159f.), Zahn 
(ZNT. iii. 273f.), Gwilliam (DCG. ii. 5 f.), and Belser (7V7Z. 292-295). 

t So, e.g., Bacon (Beginnings of Gospel Story, pp. 195 f.) and Spitta, with 
special force, 


35 


546 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


excluding, Galilee; it need not necessarily by itself include any visit t 
Jerusalem. (c) The elimination of the words τὸ πάσχα in 64 (Hort in WZ. 
77-81; van Bebber in Zur Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 1898, pp. 33f., 
after Jacobsen and others), which rests on their neglect by the Alogi, Irenzeus, 
Origen, etc., and on the possibility of assimilation with 218, would reduce the 
chronological discrepancy between the Fourth gospel and the synoptists ; but 
the evidence does not yet seem strong enough for this hypothesis (cp. Burkitt’s 
Ev. da-Mepharr. ii. 313), unless, with Schwartz, Wellhausen, R. Schittz, and 
others, the whole verse is deleted as one of the editorial insertions. * 


(4) The Fourth evangelist, like his two immediate pre- 
decessors, thus bases on Mk.’s narrative, but diverges from it 
repeatedly ; these divergencies are in some cases accidental, in 
others due to a preference for Mt. or Lk., or for both combined, 
and in other cases, again, the result of some independent tradition. 
Their motive cannot always be explained from his pragmatism, but 
the important point is that his method and its results do not 
suggest invariably the instinct of an eye-witness who sifts earlier 
traditions of differing value. The details are in the main the 
circumstantial minutia of a vivid or symbolic (Philonic) 
imagination, when they are not borrowed from the synoptic 
| narratives. The use made of these narratives by the Fourth 
evangelist really illustrates the derivative and secondary character 
of his work, judged from the historical standpoint, and this 
conclusion is not affected by the admission that on two points 
in particular, ¢eg., the date of the death and the previous 
connection with Judea, the tradition of the Fourth gospel has 
substantially reproduced elements which later phases of the 
synoptic tradition tended to obliterate. 


(a) It would tell strongly against an eye-witness or a Palestinian Jewish 
Christian as the author of, or one of the authorities for, the gospel, if the 
description of Kaiaphas as ἀρχιερεὺς ὧν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου (11% δ᾽ 1815) 
meant that the writer really believed the Jewish high priests were appointed 
annually, like the Asiarchs (so from Bretschneider and Baur to Martineau and 
Forbes). But this argument is not valid. The phrase might either mean 
in that fateful year (so, ¢.g., Keim, Godet, Zahn, Peake, amongst others), or 
that the writer simply adapted his description to the local customs with which 
his readers were familiar (so, ¢.g., Holtzmann and Loisy). The former 


* The widespread admission, that a historical nucleus underlies the 
Johannine traditions about the Judean ministry, is opposed to the predominant 
view which has been recently argued with exceptional ability by Dr. James 
Drummond (pp. 41 f.), whose critical position generally is as favourable to the 
external evidence for the Johannine authorship as it is unfavourable io the 
historicity of the gospel’s contents, 


TOPOGRAPHY $47 


explanation is preferable, upon the whole. ‘‘The year of which the 
evangelist speaks was the year of all years; the acceptable year of the Loid, 
as it is elsewhere called; the year in which the great sacrifice, the one 
atonement, was made, the atonement which annulled once and for ever the 
annual repetitions. It so happened that it was the duty of Caiaphas, as high 
priest, to enter the holy of holies and offer the atonement for ¢ha¢ year. 
The evangelist sees, if we may use the phrase without irreverence, a dramatic 
propriety in the fact that he of all men should make this declaration. By 
a divine irony he is made unconsciously to declare the truth, proclaiming 
Jesus to be the great atoning sacrifice, and himself to be instrumental in 
offering the victim. This irony of circumstances is illustrated in the case of 
Pilate, as in the case of Caiaphas” (Lightfoot, Ax/.4 i. 88-89). 

(6) A similar verdict may be passed upon the discourses, where the 
creative genius of the author is at its height. Even here, in spite of the 
dialectic which pervades the debates of Jesus and the Jews, in spite also of 
the later standpoint of the Christian consciousness which reads itself back 
at several points into the sayings, there is good evidence of an accurate 
acquaintance, on the part of the author or of his sources, with the Palestinian 
situation. ‘‘One of the most remarkable facts about the writings of recent 
Jewish critics of the New Testament has been that they have tended upon the 
whole to confirm the gospel picture of external Jewish life, and where there 
is a discrepancy these critics tend to prove that the blame lies not with the 
New Testament originals, but with their interpreters. Dr. Giidemann, Dr. 
Biicheler, Dr. Schechter, Dr. Chwolsohn, Dr. Marmorstein, have all shown 
that the Talmud makes credible details which many Christian expositors have 
been rather inclined to doubt. Most remarkable of all has been the cumu- 
lative strength of the arguments adduced by Jewish writers favourable to the 
authenticity of the discourses in the Fourth gospel, especially in relation to 
the circumstances under which they are reported to have been spoken.” * 


§ 6. Zopography.—Nearly forty years ago, Matthew Arnold, 
in God and the Bible (ch. v.), observed that the Fourth evangelist’s 
“ Palestinian geography is so vague, it has for him so little of the 
reality and necessity which it would have for a native, that when 
he wants a name for a locality he takes the first village that comes 
into his remembrance, without troubling himself to think whether 
it suits or no.” This hasty verdict had been rejected by anti- 
cipatior. in Keim (i. 179), and subsequent research has shown 
that whoever the author was, he must have had a first-hand 
acquaintance with the topography of Palestine prior to A.D. 70. 
Summaries of the evidence may be seen in K. Furrer’s article on 
‘das Geographische im Evglm nach Johannes’ (ZV IW, 1902, 
257-265), Drummond (pp. 366-374), Lohr’s essay on ‘ Wie 
stellt sich die neuere Paldstinaforschung zu den geographischen 
Angaben des Johannesevglms’ (Deutsch-Evang. Blatter, 1906, 

* Dr. Abrahams in Cambridge Liblical Essays (1909), 181. 


348 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


795f.), and Bacon, Zhe Fourth Gospel in Research and Debatt 
(1910), ch. xv. 


In most cases the difficulty resolves itself into our ignorance of the local 
geography, not into the writer’s. Thus, the Bethany πέραν τοῦ ᾿ΙΤορδάνον 
(cp. 1059) which was the scene of John’s mission (138) may be identified either 
with the Betonim (Betdne) of Jos 13°(so Zahn, VXZ., 1907, 266f., and 
Furrer), or, ifthe inferior reading Bethabara be adopted, with Bashan (Batanea, 
so Henderson’s Palestine, 154, and Conder, Zent-Work, 230; the latter 
identifying the spot with ford ‘Adarah). But the Bethabara of Origen * 
and the Zvang. da-Meph. (cp. Mrs. Lewis, Zhe Old Syriac Gospel, 1910, 
p- xxviii, and Burkitt’s ed. ii. 308 f.) seems due to local tradition, which 
identified the scene with a pre-Christian holy place which became, at any rate, 
a sacred spot for Christians before the end of the second century. Others 
(e.g. Mommert, Aenon u. Bethania, 1903, and Lohr) suggest that both 
names refer to the same spot, Bethany being a ford nearly opposite Jericho 
(=Bethabara), ‘house of the ford,’ while some (from Sir George Grove and 
Sir C. W. Wilson to Cheyne, Bz. 548; and Rix, 7ent and Testament, 175 f.) 
variously explain the names as corruptions of an original Βηθαναβρά, z.e. Beth- 
Nimrah (cp. Βαιθαναβρά, Jos 1377) over thirteen miles east of the Jordan 
(cp. Abbott, Dzat. 13-14, 610-616). This is, at any rate, better than the 
identification of Bethabarah with the Βαιθηρά or Beth-barah of Jg 7% (Sanday, 
Sacred Sites, 23). 

The other scene of John’s mission, Αἰνὼν ἐγγὺς τοῦ Σαλεὶμ (3%), is either 
Ainfin, seven miles from Salim (Conder’s 7ent- Work, i. 91 f.), or’ Ain-Fara, 
about two hours N.N.E. of Jerusalem (Furrer, Moore in DCG. i. 353 
Sanday’s Sacred Sites of Gospel, 1903, 33f.), or’ Ain Dschirm da (Mommert), 
eight miles 5. of Scythopolis (for other identifications, see Lagrange in Δ᾽ 8., 
1895, 509 f. ; Hastings’ 228. iv. 354; Zz. 4242, and Nestle in DCG. ii. 
550-551). In any case the actuality of the place is not affected, even if the 
name + is supposed to carry a certain allegorical significance (e.g. Fountains 
near to Peace, the Baptist preparing for the higher purification by Christ the 
king of Salem=Melchizedek ; so Abbott in Dzat. 615-616, and 2.87. 1796; 
Pfleiderer, Loisy, Kreyenbiihl : i. 589, ii. 378). This possibility of a symbolic 
allusion recurs in the case of the Samaritan town Zuydp (45), which the 
majority of recent geographers (notably Sir Charles Wilson in Hastings’ DZ. 
iv. 635; Conder, G. A. Smith’s Hest. Geography, ch. xviii. ; A. W. Cooke, 
DCG. ii. 685-687; Furrer, Lohr, and Rix’s Zent and Testament, 26f.) 
continue to identify with ‘Askar. The term is hardly, as Jerome thought, 
a transcriptional error for Συχέμ, but it might be a play on it, either as Sheker 
=false (of idols, Hab 218, so Hengstenberg and others), or Sk¢kéor = drunken 


* On the variant Βηθαρά in the MSS of Origen, see Brooke (77:5. i. 65). 
Origen’s explanation of it as=olkos κατασκευῆς suggests to him a play upon 
the name as appropriate to the mission of one who prepared (Mt 111°) the 
Lord’s way. ‘‘ Fortasse primum scriptum fuit Βηθσαν, que urbs in campo 
ad Iordanem ad ripam parui fluminis erat” (Bretschneider, 96). 

¢ An error (Bretschneider, 96-97), due to the writer mistaking jy (= 
fontes, aguc) for |3’y, the name of a town. 


TOPOGRAPHY 549 


(Is 281, of the Samaritans). The latter has been widely held, ¢.g., among 
cecent editors by Abbott (5.821. 1796, 1801), Loisy, and Calmes ; Kreyenbiihl 
(ii. 396-397) modifies it into an identification of Sychar with ia¥=a 
drinker—here of water z.¢., Samaria, personified in the woman, lives on a 
_ religious knowledge which is inferior to the true water or knowledge of 
Christianity. 

The pool ἐπιλεγομένη ‘EBpaicrl Βηθζαθά, πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα (57) is still 
a vexed problem in the topography of Jerusalem (best summary by G. A. 
Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 564 f. ; cp. Moore in DCG. i. 193-195) ; even the name 
is uncertain, though Bethzatha or Bezatha seems the original form (cp. Keim, 
iii. 215f.; WH. ii. 76; Nestle in ZV/V., 1902, 171-172) either as Bezetha 
(so Josephus for the north quarter of the city) or Βηθζαιθά = ‘the house of the 
olive.’ But again the local touch is not affected by the symbolic meaning of 
the five porches as the five books of the Mosaic law (which has been obvious 
since Augustine) with its intermittent purification, and of the thirty-eight 
years in v.5 (=Israel’s thirty-eight years in the wilderness, Dt 2). The 
inferior reading Bethesda (=77p7 13, house of mercy or grace) probably was 
substituted for the original on this account. 

In 6! (as in 211) τῆς Τιβεριάδος is a water-mark of the second century, or, 
at any rate, of the end of the first century (cp. Josephus, Be//. iv. 8. 2). 
‘Alle Schriftsteller im ersten Jahr. ἢ. Chr. den Ausdruck See von Tiberias 
noch nicht haben; Strabo, Plinius, Josephus brauchen die Form See 
Gennesar oder Gennesaritis, auch die Targumim haben diese Form. Vom 2 
Jahrh. an scheint der name Tiberiassee mehr und mehr officiell geworden zu 
sein’ (Furrer, ZVW., 1902, 261).* It is needless to suppose (so, ¢.g., 
Dods, Wellhausen, Cheyne: £42. 1632, Drummond, and Furrer) that τῆς T. 
is a later gloss in 6! (cp. Abbott, Dzat. 2045). 

The symbolic touch in 97 (Σιλωάμ, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται ἀπεσταλμένος) Τ is 
enigmatic. The meaning of the original Shz/oah (=sent or conducted) is 
evidently, in the light of the symbolism which shimmers through the whole 
story, applied to Jesus as the one sent by God (on this favourite Johannine 
phrase, cp. Abbott’s Dzat. 2277, etc.), who came by water (#.¢. in the 
Spirit conferred at baptism). If Siloam is identified here with the mysterious 
messianic Shiloh of Gn 49’ (so Grotius), then there is a mystic reference 
(Abbott, Zz. 1803) to the supersession of the Law by him who was sent from 
God. In any case, baptism is the true illumination of the soul. The other 
interpretations (the. pool as a second messenger of God, the apostles, the 
blind man himself) are highly speculative (cp. Kreyenbiihl, ii. 115f.). 

Βηθσαϊδὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας (1274) is regarded by Furrer as another water-mark 
of the second century, since Claudius Ptolemzeus (¢. A.D. 140) is the first 


* Any one acquainted with the local landscape, he adds, will recognise 
that the topographical details of the following story are strikingly vivid and 
exact. 

+ Liicke takes the last three words as a gloss; but the play (nib? and mby 
Ξε ἀπεσταλμένος) is quite characteristic of the author, and there is no MS 
evidence for their omission. The pool ‘‘is one of the few undisputed sites in 
the topography of Jerusalem” (Rix, Zent and Testament, 213f., precariously 
identifying Bethesda and Siloam). 


550 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


writer who reckons J alias (7.¢. Bethsaida) to Galilee. But as “the province 
of Galilee ran right round the lake, and included most of the level coast-land 
on the East” (6. A. Smith, “7st. Geography, p. 458), and as the latter was 
definitely included in Galilee by Α. Ὁ. 84, it is needless (see the proofs in Rix, 
op. cit. 265 f.) to posit two Bethsaidas, or to date the expression of the Fourth 
gospel later than at least the last decade of the first century. 

Only two points of topography in the passion-narrative present any 
difficulty. (a) rod Κέδρων (the original reading in 181) is the ravine or winter- 
brook dividing Gethsemane and the Mount of Olives from the city proper. 
The original meaning of the term (=black, 117?) may have been in the 
writer's mind, as well asa recollection of David’s retreat from the treachery 
of Absalom (2 S 1.5.5). The extremely difficult (cp. Nestle in Hastings’ DB. 
ii. 74-75) expression (4) in 1915, describing the tribunal in Herod’s palace as 
set upon a spot called AcOécrpwrov, Ββραϊστὶ δὲ Ταββαθᾶ, is at least as likely 
to be a correct trait (so Keim, vi. 85 f.), derived either from good tradition or 
from personal knowledge, as a misunderstanding of some notice about the 
meeting-place of the Sanhedrin (Brandt, Evang. Gesch. 133), although the 
lack of any other evidence leaves its meaning almost hopelessly obscure. 
Beyond the general agreement that Gabbatha, perhaps a Gk. equivalent for 
the Aramaic xpz3 (=ridge or height), is not a translation for λιθόστρωτον 
(mosaic or pavement), but another description of the place on which the βῆμα 
stood, we can hardly go. The variant Καπῴαθα (1, cp. Burkitt’s Zvang. da- 
Meph, ii. 251) and Dalman’s (Worte Jesu, i. 6, Eng. tr. 7) derivation of 
Gabbatha are both set aside by Wellhausen (p. 86). The attempt of Honig 
(ZWT. xiv. 564) and Hausrath to connect ἃ. with Mk 1415 is futile; Jesus 
the Lamb of God is not slain by Pilate, and the terms in question are incon- 
gruous. The theory that the whole phrase is an artificial and meaningless 
invention (M. A. Canney, Zz. 3638-3640) is inconsistent with the symbolic 
predilections of the writer (cp. G. A. Smith’s Jerusalem, ii. 575, who 
tentatively refers to 123=to rake or put together little things—a possible 
source of the ‘mosaic’ meaning, which Zahn unhesitatingly adopts). 

The Fourth gospel ignores the Lucan tradition (24°°) that the ascension 
took place in the vicinity of Bethany, about a mile and three-quarters from 
Jerusaleya, on “he Mount of Olives, but (117) assigns the resurrection of 
Lazarus to this village, and, .o1uiowing Mk. and Mt., makes Jesus reside there 
prior to his entry into the capital (12%). Even were the meaning of the 
name (Ξε ΝῊ} ΠΡ, house of affliction or misery ἢ) plainer than it is, there would 
be no reason to regard it in 11} as an allegorical invention of the Fourth 
evangelist. Consequently, while one or two place-names are invested with 
symbolic meaning, it cannot be said that topographical investigation lends 
any support upon the whole to the theory that the writer invented geo- 
graphical allusions for the sake of his own purposes or mistook earlier 
traditions. 


§ 7. Structure.—Special literature (in addition to works cited 
below)—(a) in favour of literary reconstruction: Burton (BW, 
1899, 16-41), Bacon (A/7, 1900, 770-795, ZNTZ. 272f., 
Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, chs, xviii.-x*x.), Moffatt 
(HNT. 689-694), Briggs (New Light on Life of Jesus, 1904, 


LITERARY STRUCTURE 551 


140-158), Wellhausen’s Z7wetterungen und Aenderungen im 
vierten Evglm (1907)* and Das Eveln Johannis (1908), R. 
Schitz (ZVI. vili. 243f.), Schwartz (‘Aporien im vierten 
Evglm,’ Gott. Gelehrte Nachrichten, 1907, 342f., 1908, 116f., 
149 f., 497f.), Bousset (ZR. xii. 1-12, 39-64), F. J. Paul (177, 
1909, 662-668), F. W. Lewis (Disarrangements in Fourth Gospel, 
1910). 

(ὁ) adverse= Holtzmann (ZIV. iii. 50-60) and C. R. 
Gregory, Wellhausen und Johannes (1910). 

The further question is whether all this local knowledge and 
circumstantial detail of the Fourth gospel can suffice to prove 
that the auchor had been a Palestinian apostle. The inference 
is not necessary. Literary annals abound with cases of an 
imaginative historical reconstruction, where the author is known 
to have hal no direct acquaintance with the countries in which 
his scenes are laid. Gz/ Blas de Santi/lane, for all its masterly 
delineation of Spanish manners, was composed by a man who 
had never been in Spain. And Shakespeare was like Le Sage 
in this. His Italian plays reveal a wonderfully wide and 
intimate acquaintance with Italy, which was due, not to local 
knowledge, but to “the power to grasp some trifling indication, 
some fugitive hint, and from it to reconstruct a whole scheme 
of things which shall, in all essentials, correspond to fact.” + 
Besides, circumstantial detail is not an infallible note of 
historical veracity, as Defoe alone is enough to prove. Geo- 
graphical precision is often accompanied by a varying level of 
historical accuracy, and minute touches are as likely to prove a 
later age as a contemporary witness (see above, p. 280). The 
‘Johannine’ deviations from the synoptic traditions are to be 
referred partly to the freedom of the writer’s imagination, working 
under the influence of certain religious preconceptions, and 
partly—when they are accurate—to an independent historical 
tradition mediated orally or in writing. But, is the latter 
hypothesis tenable? In answering this question, we premise 
that the gospel cannot any longer be assumed by the literary 
critic to be a seamless robe. ‘Two sets of theories prevail upon 
its structure: (a) the partition-theories, which disentangle a more 
or less genuine Grundschrift from the subsequent editoriai 

* Adverse reviews of this pamphlet by Corssen (ZVW. viii. 125-142) 


and Moffatt (Zxf.7, 1907, 56-69). 
+ H. Ε΄ Brown, Studies tn Venetian History (1907), ti. pp. 159f. 


552 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


additions, apostolic (so especially Wendt and Spitta) or not 
{Wellhausen) ; and (4) the revision-theories, which explain the 
phenomena of the canonical gospel by positing an editor who 
has not only in the appendix but elsewhere recast the gospel 
for purposes which originally it was not meant to serve (so 
variously Kreyenbiihl, Harnack, Bousset, Heitmiiller, Volter, 
Schwartz, Bacon). Either set of theories may be combined with 
the further hypothesis (c) of dislocations in the text, which are not 
always to be accounted for on the score of the writer’s preference 
for association of ideas rather than chronological sequence. 

The besetting danger of such hypotheses is their tendency to 
assume a logical or chronological sequence in the gospel, which 
may not have been present to the author’s mind, and especially 
to harmonise the relative sections with the synoptic order. On 
the other hand, it is equally illegitimate to attribute a schematism 
to the gospel which would rule out at all costs any application 
of the transposition-theory. The author certainly had a 
pragmatism of his own, which often admits of unevennesses * 
in order to gain its end; he thought more of the religious ideas 
than of the historical setting which he could provide for them, 
and his adjustment of the latter between Judea and Galilee was 
partly controiled by the need of adhering in some degree to the 
synoptic outline ; chronological affinities are repeatedly sacrificed 
to the needs of dialectic, and the opponents of Jesus form a 
unity rather than any series of different people in Galilee and 
Judea. But these considerations only suggest that most of the 
transpositions and interpolations are more probably due to copyists 
and later editors than to the author himself. 


(a) The attempts to rearrange the prologue start mainly from the 
parenthetical v., which breaks the sequence of and δ; if any change is to 
be made, the verse lies better after 18 (so, Markland, Bakhuyzen, and Ritschl, 
SK., 1875, 576f., who conjectures the original order to have been 
1-5. 10-13. 6-9. 14. 16-18. 18) than after 8 (11-5 9:14. 16-18. 6-8. 15, sq Wagenmann in 
Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theologie, 1875, 441 f.). 18-8 and 1δ are thus editorial 
additions (so, ¢.g., Wendt and Bacon, Fourth Gospel, 477 f.); the latter verse 
is probably a marginal glosst (based on 1%), incorporated in order to 
emphasise John’s witness to the Logos (as to the Light, 1”). 


* Cp. Gregory, of. c#t. 50, ‘‘ Mir ist es durchaus nicht auffallend das Alles 
nicht vollig klar ist. Kein Literarkritiker kann die feine Arbeit eines 
Sainte-Beuve im NT suchen.” 

¢ Here as throughout the gospel it is a question whether such apparent 
displacements or interpolations are due to the accidental disarrangement of 


LITERARY STRUCTURE 553 


(4) A minor case of interpolatior has been also found in 3°, where ἐξ 
ὕδατος καὶ (omitted in the best text of v.®) is taken by several scholars, 
from Dieffenbach* (in Bertholdt’s ΑΖ. Journ. v. 1-16) to van Manen 
(77., 1891, pp. 189 f. ‘ Het Misverstand in het vierde Evangelie’), Wendt, 
Kirsopp Lake (/rfluence of Textual Criticism on Exegesis of NT, 1904, 15 f.), 
K. Andresen (/deen zu einer jesuzentrischen Welt-Religton, 1904, pp. 324f.), 
Tolstoy, Wellhausen, and others, to be a catholicising addition or interpre- 
tative gloss. The variants of the Syriac versions (cp. Burkitt, Zvang. da- 
Meph. ii. 309 f.) are explicable if such an abbreviated text is assumed to have 
underlain them. In any case, the reference is to the Christian sacrament of 
baptism, as in 3%, not to John’s baptism (Usteri, SA, 1890, 517 f.).+t 

(c) 48 μετὰ δὲ ras δύο ἡμέρας ἐξῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. “4 αὐτὸς 
yap’ Τησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει. 45 ὅτε 
οὖν ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, ἐδέξαντο αὐτὸν οἱ Τ᾽αλιλαῖοι, πάντα ἑωρακότες 
ἃ ἐποίησεν ἐν ᾿Ιεροσολύμοις ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ" καὶ αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἦλθον εἰς τὴν éoprny. 
46 ἦλθεν οὖν πάλιν εἰς τὴν Kava τῆς Γαλιλαίας, ὅπου ἐποίησεν τὸ ὕδωρ οἵνον. 
After the Samaritan interlude, ν. 5. picks up the thread of ν.8 (ἀφῆκεν τὴν 
᾿Ιουδαίαν καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πάλιν els τὴν Γαλιλαίαν), but the synoptic material is 
broken up as well as re-set. The writer reserves the synagogue question, 
Ts not this the son of Joseph? till 6”, giving it a sceptical turn and 
transferring it from the citizens of Nazareth to the Jews of Kapharnaum. He 
also makes the companion proverb apply not to a town but to a country—for 
πατρίς in v.# (as it stands) cannot denote Nazareth, much less Jerusalem. 
But is this country Galilee or Judea? The following words seem to indicate 
the latter upon the whole, for the explanations of πατρίς as Galilee are more 
ingenious than convincing. But then the Fourth gospel assumes the Galilean 
origin of Jesus (2* 741-52), and Judea could hardly be called the πατρίς of 
Jesus because it was the πατρίς of the prophets in general, or because it 
included Bethlehem (which the Fourth gospel ignores as the birthplace of 
Jesus). The question thus arises, does v.“ stand in its proper place? It is 
not enough (with Wellhausen) to dismiss it as an insertion, without accounting 
for its present position, and if the exegetical difficulties drive us to 
the hypothesis of a gloss, it is better to conjecture some misplacement in 
the text, and to put the verse either after ® (so Blass, changing γὰρ to δὲ) 
or, better, after (so Cramer, and Konnecke, Amendationen zu Stellen des 
NT, 1908, pp. 10-11). In the latter case, πατρίς has its synoptic sense of 
‘*native place,” and explains why (in the scheme of the Fourth gospel) Cana 
was preferred to Nazareth. 


leaves in the original, or to editorial revision. Some instances suggest 
accident, others a scribe’s error, others again a more conscious purpose (see 
above, p. 39). 

* He anticipates Kreyenbiihl in regarding 17°¢ as another gloss. 

+ Bacon (Fourth Gospel, 518 f.) thinks Tatian has preserved the original 
order by placing 3)! after 7%. Like Delff and Wellhausen, he recognises 
the abruptness of 2! after 21:15, but the transposition (so, ¢.g., Lewis) of 322° 
to its original position after 2!* probably solves most of the difficulties (cp. 
e.g. 2°= 3%, 27 9= 3°, 21°= 3%) and restores the original connection between 
32 and 33! (cp. eg. 3% = 3%, 3! 7= 3, 38 = 3), 


554 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


(4) Anticipated by a fourteenth-century writer, Ludolphus de Saxonia,* 
J. P. Norris (Journ. Philol., 1871, 107-112), Lewis, and Burton transpose § 
and 6, the latter being (like 21) a Galilean episode which was added after the 
gospel had been finished, and placed too late. The connection of 453 and 6! is 
certainly good, while 7! echoes 5'8 and 7}*-* (when 7154 is restored to its 
original position after 5%’). Becker (SA, 1889, 117-140) holds that the 
episodical chanters 5, 7, and 15-16 were added to the gospel by the author, 
after he had finished his first draft of the work, while Burton puts 7° after 
7°2, $1220 after yo"! (a specially good setting, since 812 presupposes, not the 
audience of 757, but one like that of 10!%-2!, while 8! follows 7° very aptly), 
and 10!}8 after 10% (which also brings 10! nearer to 9} and gives a better 
opening for 10%), 

(¢) Various attempts have been made to break up the speech in 6. 
Resides those of Wendt, Wellhausen, and Spitta (Urc. i. 216-221: 651-ὃϑ a 
eucharistic addition), which are improbable (cp. Schmiedel, ZAz. 2523f., 
and Kreyenbiihl, ii. 34f.), Chastand (L’apdtre Jean et le quatriéme évangile, 
pp. 241 f.) distinguishes a speech in the synagogue (658-80, 36-40. 45-45) from one 
by the seaside (676-27. 81-85. 41-42. 47-58)| The unexpected ἐν συναγωγῇ of 6™, 
coming after 635, and 6” after 6"4, suggest a conflation of two traditions. This 
is, at any rate, better than to regard 61.385 as an interpolation (so Schweitzer, 
Das Ev. Johannes, 1841, pp. 80f.). 

(f) One of the clearest instances of misplacement is the removal of 715 3 
from its original position after 5% (Bertling, SA., 1880, 351f., uncon- 
vincingly Τ puts 71-4 before 517) ; its themes—faith in Christ’s teaching, his 
authority and relation to Moses, his healing on the Sabbath—fit in closely 
to the argument of 5 (cp. 53% 45 -- 715, 5M 718, 518 719 58-7. 721, 516-18 _ 720-28, 
5%=7%). This hypothesis (Wendt, J. Weiss: 7ZZ., 1893, 397, Burton, 
Blass, Spitta, Moffatt, F. J. Paul) further leaves the original course of 7 
and 7%! open; Jesus enters the temple and teaches in public, which sets 
some of the Jerusalemites talking, of upon the subject of 744, but on his 
openness (715) and unhindered action. Whether the displacement was acci- 
dental, or part of a redactor’s work, the case for the restoration of 71° to 
its original site is extremely strong. Thus—to quote only one or two items 
of proof—the question of 7% becomes pointless if Jesus had just spoken 71%}, 
and 77-41 requires a much closer connection with 5% than the traditional 
arrangement provides ; the murderous attitude of the crowd (713-33) contradicts 
712 but is organic to the situation created in 5!*!8, The question of the 
Sabbath is certainly dropped at 517 (Schmiedel, ZA. 2529), but it leads 
naturally to the question of Moses, and by as natural a transition (in the 
Johannine dialectic) to the original topic in dispute (7233. The replacement 
of the passage in its proper setting clears up some of the arguments which 
Wellhausen (p. 37) raises against its unity ; others (e.g. οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, 715-18, 


* Bacon (fourth Gospel, 505) plausibly suggests that Ludolphus was 
influenced by the Tatianic Diatessaron which ‘‘ circulated in an ancient High 
German and Latin bilingual translation as early as the ninth century.” 

t Cp. Waitz in SA. (1581) 145-160. 

+ He admits, however, the identity of situation and theme in 5 and 7-8. 
** Dass das bloss auf Oscitanz des Schriftstellers beruhe, dass dieser an die 


LITERARY STRUCTURE 555 


but ὁ ὄχλος, 7%") are not serious (cp. 6% 4 and 6%). It was perhaps the 
allusions in 7! and 7% which led an early copyist to mistake this site for the 
true one. Displacement is, at any rate, preferable to the idea that ν. 39 
(Scholten), or νν. 3:-39 (Bacon), or 37-44 (Wellhausen), are editorial additions. 
(g) The pericopé adulterze (7°°-8%), though occasionally defended by 
critics of opposite schools (e.g. Burgon and Miller, Causes of Corruption in 
the Trad. Text of the Holy Gospels, 1896, 232 f. ; A. Syski, De authentia loct 
. . atssertatio critica [Warsaw, 1905], Bretschneider, Thoma, Jacobsen, 
and Kreyenbiihl, ii. 162 f.) as an integral part of the gospel, betrays by its 
un-Johannine tone and style an outside origin, either in the gospel of the 
Hebrews* (Bleek, Pfleiderer), or in the gospel of Peter (Volkmar, cp. 
Harnack in 7U. xiii. 2. 50f.), the Aramaic original of Matthew (Resch, 
Agrapha, 36f., Paulinismus, 419f.), the original synoptic tradition 
(Holtzmann), or, as most critics are content to imagine, the collected 
materials of Papias (7.4. the traditions of John the presbyter). The textual 
evidence is conclusive (cp. Westcott, ii. 380f.; Gregory’s Canon and Text, 
379, 513 f., and Zahn’s /V7. iii. 346f.). A number of MSS read it here, 
as early as Jerome’s day,—which in any case is an impossible position,—but 
the majority of MSS and versions ignored it. The internal evidence points 
to a source nearer the synoptic traditions, and to a site for the story (which is 
undoubtedly authentic 7) during the last days of Jesus in Jerusalem. Its 
original position may have been somewhere between Mk 1277 and 13} (O. 
Holtzmann, perh. before 12, cp. ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ with els τὸ ἱερόν, Jn 82; Keim, 
v. 165 f.; Wittichen, /P7., 1881, 366 f. ; and Hitzig, between 12!7 and 1218), 
or (the Ferrar group) after Lk 21 (so Blass: of. c?t. 155 f., Bacon, Westcott, 
Harnack, SBBA., 1904, 193; cp. 8?=Lk 21%), if not between Lk 20% 
and 207 (Holtzmann, 7ZZ., 1898, 536f.). Whether the textual form in D 
is original (cp. von Soden’s Schriften des NT. i. 486-524; ZNIW., 1907, 
110-124) or not (Lietzmann, ZV/V., 1997, 34-37), the synoptic colour of the 
passage points to some such locus rather than any position, e¢.g., after 7% or 7 
(so some later MSS), or between 5 and 6 (Rendel Harris, Mew Testament 
Autographs, pp. 10f.). If it was inserted after 7° in order to fill up a 
vacant place originally occupied by another story (Hausrath, Spitta, Ure. i. 
194f.), the early uncials betray as little knowledge of either pericopé as the 
versions. The probability is that this floating passage of primitive tradition 


Leser seines Buches denke, fiir die das Kap. 5 wenige Seiten vorher stand, 
nicht aber an die Horer der Rede, die durch anderthalb Jahre von dem in 
Kap. 5 Geschehenen getrennt waren, ist eine verzweifelte Auskunft, welche 
die Riickstandigkeit der modernen theologischen Exegese kennzeichnet.” 

* In which, according to Eusebius (7. 25. iii. 39. 18), there was a ἱστορία 
περὶ γυναικὸς ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβχηθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου included in 
the book of Papias. It is uncertain, however, whether this ἱστορία refers 
to Lk 75-9 or to Jn 7-8", 

+ Halévy (RS., 1901, 244-257) objects to a lack of the gratitude and 
affection which fallen women in the synoptic tradition show to Jesus, and 
argues that the writing on the dust (cp. Jer 17!%) was to condemn the 
Pharisees as false witnesses. But there aie only quasi-reasons for supposing 
that she was another Susanna (cp. 81} and Herm. d/amd. iv. 1. 4). 


556 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


(cp. Burkitt’s Two Lectures on the Gospels, 81 f.; C. Taylor in JTS. iv. 129- 
130, and Weiss in ZW7., 1903, 141-158) drifted as a marginal note intc 
some MSS of John at this point (perhaps as an illustration of 7 or 85), and 
finally was settled in the text during the third or the fourth century. If it was 
at one time written (as there is some textual evidence to believe that it was) at 
the end of the gospel-canon, it would be natural to find a place for it 
somewhere in the Fourth gospel; but this could not have been its early or 
original position (cp. Loisy, 541). 

(2) 10%, which interrupts 10!-®! and 1042, may have originally lain 
before 813 (cp. 7715. ii. 137-140), or (Bacon, Fourth Gospel, 493f.) may 
have been added, editorially, along with 21** to fill up the five festal 
revelations of Jesus (cp. Wellhausen, 49-50). 

(2) The traditional position of 12445 is isolated. There is an awkwardness 
in “ coming after 860 (the cry does not suit the secrecy), and indeed after 
Ὁ When the passage is restored (cp. Wendt, Moffatt’s HNV7. 692) to 
what may be conjectured to have been its original site between 868 and 360. 
the ideas of light and faith (which it is far-fetched to view as a recapitu- 
lation of 8:32 etc.) are carried on without any interruption, and Christ’s 
public utterances receive a sonorous climax. Carlier in the chapter, 
1277-80 (a Johannine reproduction of Lk 22%“) has been placed after τι 
by Fries (ZV W., 1900, 300); but this breaks the symmetry of the latter 
passage. 

(7) The hypothesis that chs. 15-16 represent a later addition, either 
by the author himself (Becker, SX., 1889, 132 f.; Lattey, Zxf.7, May 1906, 
433-434) or by a redactor (so, for 15-17, Wellhausen, Heitmiiller), allows 
14! to lie in its original connection with 18! (ch. 17 being spoken by Jesus 
standing in the attitude of prayer before leaving the room). The data in 
favour of another author are hardly adequate, however (cp. Corssen, ZVW’., 
1907, pp. 138 f., and Moffatt, #xp.7, July 1907, 63 f.), except on the ex- 
tremely precarious hypothesis that the gospel as a whole underwent a process 
of accretion which was largely due to theological tendencies. To strike out 
ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν ἔντευθεν (Corssen) is to cut the Gordian knot, and the only 
alternative is to follow the internal evidence, which points to the conclusion 
that, by some dislocation, 14 has been displaced from its original position 
immediately before 17. The canonical arrangement leaves some awkward 
sequences, ¢.g. in the fact of a long discourse following 1439 (hereafter I will 
not talk much with you),* the contradiction between 165 and 1386 or 145% 
(when the latter are put earlier), and the incongruity of 16! after declara- 
tions like 13 1418 etc. The climax and final tone of 14%! (Avzse, let us go 
hence) has always been felt to be strange, in view of the unexpected sequence 
of 15-16 and 17; and though more or less forced psychological explanations 
are possible, it is a fair hypothesis to regard this parallel to Mk 14” as 
indicating some break or (to use geological language) some fault in the strata 
of the literary record. Three theories of the place originally occupied by 
15-16 have been suggested ; either (i.) to set them between 1.385 and 13% 
(Wendt, F. J. Paul), or (ii.) to interpolate them between 13” and 13” (Bacon, 

*In the subsequent narrative only two brief words (18" 19”) are 
addressed to disciples. 


LITERARY STRUCTURE 557 


JBL., 1894, pp. 64-76),” or (iii.) to restore them to their original position 
between 13° and 13%! (Spitta, Urc. i. pp. 168-193 ; Moffatt, HNV7. 522 f., 
692 f.). (i.) interrupts the evident sequence of 13% and 13%, and reduces 
1679-83 and 13°68 to the level of mere episodes between 14)? and 1627-8, (ii. ) 
also has the drawback of breaking the connection between 13!" and 137!-, 
(iii.) is, of all the variants of this hypothesis, the most attractive and in- 
telligible. After the withdrawal of Judas, Jesus, in view of the wine at 
table (Mk 14%, Lk 2218, Did. 9°), utters the parable of the Vine (1515) 
beginning with a special and warning allusion to the recent apostasy of his 
friend (an unfruitful branch, 157=13*!, 15°=13%), and urging brotherly 
love as the bond of life (15° carrying on 13/4"; cp. also 13!" echoed 
in 157°, 1317-18 in 154°, 1318 in 1516, and 1316 ἴῃ 152°). The connection of 
thought between 13! and 15 grows in fact more vivid as the two passages 
are set in juxtaposition; thus the love of the disciples suggests to Jesus 
(1515) the hatred shown them by the outside world, whose persecution 
forms the next topic (151%-16%), passing over into the compensations for 
the bodily absence of Jesus from his afflicted followers (16416), This 
stream of counsel and warning closes with a word of triumph, (16%= 13%1»-22), 
which runs out into a renewed appeal for mutual love among the disciples. 
Then follows Peter’s protest (13°**%), exactly as in the synoptic tradition 
(Mt 26%!%°), after Christ’s mournful anticipation (1633), The final discourse 
of 14 ends in the prayer of 17 (cp. 1450: 1γ1, 14° =17%f-, 14183=174), In the 
solemn pause before the exit—a pause too short for such a discourse as that 
of 15 and 16—Jesus utters this sublime rhapsody of faith, and then (18!) leads 
the disciples out to face the end. Note that on this rearrangement 13%4-® is 
not further from 15’ 17 than on the traditional, that 14-1 echoes 1354-%, 
and that 14 is more natural after 1616 (where the same statement, made for 
the first time, rouses wonder). 

(ὦ) The difficulties of 18!%°8 require some hypothesis of transposition or 
dislocation. (a) The order of SyrSin (18. 34, 14-15, 19-28. 16-18. 250-28) unless it was 
due to early harmonising tendencies, f yields a coherent outline (so, ¢.g., Mrs. 
A. S. Lewis, 27. xii. 518-519, and Old Syriac Gospels, 1910, p. xxxiv ; 
Blass, PAtlology of Gospels, 57 f.; Loisy, Etudes Bibligues, 142 ¢. ; Calmes, 
420 f.), though the separation of 15 and 16 is unlikely. (ὁ) Spitta’s proposal 
(Ure, i. 158-168) is 15: 19:24. 14-18. 25b-28, y_ 258 being a copyist’s repetition of 18 
for the sake of the narrative. This, however, still involves among other things 
the awkward separation of and 15, and, unless we read (c) 19-14 24. 15-28. 25-28 
(with J. N. Farquhar, #7. vi. 284-288), the alternative is (qd) 13-14- 19-24. 15-18, 
2b-28 (G. G. Findlay, #7. vi. 335 f., 478 f. ; Moffatt, HNVZ. 528 f., 693), 
which straightens out the narrative, requires little textual change, and arose 
from quite a credible slip on the part of a copyist, who passed from 15 to 1 
in the exemplar and only discovered his mistake in time to insert 1-™4 after 


* 13°88 being also restored to their original position after 16®%. The 
revisionists prefer to omit 13°°*8 (Corssen) or 13°+* (Wellhausen, Heitmiiller), 
to which Schwartz adds 137*-*6, Wellhausen 1377-?9, 

f It is doubtful whether Tatian can be cited in favour of this order ; cp. 
Hjelt’s Die syrische Evangelienuebersetzung u. Tatian’s Diatessaron, 1901, 


pp. 128 f. 


558 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


‘8 catching up the last words of 18 in order to ease the transition in ™*and thui 
recover the thread of the narrative. On this rearrangement the εἶπον of * gets 
a satisfactory subject, the high priest is Kaiaphas (as 11°), and the dispatch 
of Jesus to the latter ceases to be purposeless, as it is in the traditional order. 

The slightest change would be to take * as a parenthesis or intercalated 
remark (so from Erasmus to Edersheim). Otherwise it might be placed 
after 4(so from Cyril of Alexandria to Luther) or 5 (Strauss). Wellhausen 
omits it with ἀπὸ τοῦ Καιαφᾶ (38), and πρῶτον and ἀρχιερεὺς ὧν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ 
ἐκείνου (18), believing, with Schwartz (adding *-27) and Bousset, that the 
references to Kaiaphas are interpolated (after Mt 26%); Bacon (Fourth 
Gospel, 485 f.) omits 14(5)-8 and 35:27 as interpolated by an editor, but his 
thesis that the Tatianic order reflects the order in the original of the 
Fourth gospel (see 4/7. iv. 770-795), implies (a2) that the Diatessaron 
follows the chronological outline of the Fourth gospel—which is not the case, 
as the feasts, ¢.g., are rearranged (cp. the excellent statement by Hohson in 
The Diatessaron of Tatian and the Synoptic Problem, pp. 33 f.)}—and (6) that 
the Tatianic order of the Johannine material is free from the abruptness 
occasionally evident in the canonical text—which, again, is not the case, 
since 4“ forms but a poor bridge between 557 and 71, while, ¢.g., 6” is hardly 
a natural prelude to 4‘. 


Turning back, with these data, to the larger problem of the 
gospel’s structure, we still lack a sure clue to any process of 
extensive editing. Upon the one hand, the Fourth gospel has 
been composed in such a way that any earlier documents can 
no longer be disentangled without recourse to highly arbitrary 
canons of literary procedure and speculative reconstructions of 
the text. On the other hand, any original* details and sayings 
which may be assumed to lie embedded in its pages do not 
require more than some primitive witness upon whom the author 
draws, either in the way of reproducing them from oral tradition 
or by direct reminiscence. These reminiscences are more easily 
felt than defined. But while the recognition of a good tradition 
under, ¢.g., some of the Judean passages and Jewish allusions in the 
Fourth gospel may imply an eye-witness as their ultimate source, 
it need not have been John the apostle. The disciples who 
accompanied Jesus on any of his visits to Judea and Jerusalem 
must have included those familiar to us in the synoptic gospels, 


* Original, #.¢, in the sense of being independent of the synoptic traditions. 
The speeches are not condensed summaries, but expansions of such sayings or 
variations upon homiletic themes suggested more than once by OT passages 
upon which midrashic interpretation had been playing (cp. G. Klein’s Der 
Glteste Christliche Katechismus, 1909, pp. 49f.). For the Fourth gospel as 
an inspired Targum, freely rendering the sense of Christ’s teaching for a later 
age, cp. Abbott’s Diat. 3374 A. 


LITERARY STRUCTURE 559 


but it is only on the last visit to Jerusalem that the beloved 
disciple appears in the rdle of pre-eminence; this rdéle at 
one point (1815) suggests not a Galilean fisherman, but a 
Jerusalemite ; it is significant that the beloved disciple is not 
claimed as an authority for the characteristic episodes in the 
earlier portion of the gospel, at some of which, indeed (eg. 31% 
and 4%), he could not have been present, and the sole trait for 
which his authority is cited (195) is one of the most doubtful 
statements in the whole narrative. 


Little or no result has flowed from the repeated attempts to postulate a 
Johannine document or substratum, which have been made for a century and 
@ quarter by critics from Bertholdt (7277. ili. 1302 f.), who argued that John 
took down the Aramaic sayings of Jesus on the spot and afterwards wrote 
them out from his notes, to Wendt, Briggs,* and Spitta + (Das /Johannes- 
Euglm als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu, 1910). Since John the apostle was 
martyred early, the only available hypotheses of this kind are those which 
make the historical narrative come from a disciple of John, and merely the 
discourses from the apostle himself (so, ¢g., Eckermann originally in 
Theologische Beitrage, 1796; C. H. Weisse, ave Euglienfrage, 1856); or 
those which more cautiously make John only the witness or guarantee of the 
tradition, the authorship being relegated to a later hand (so, ¢.g., Paulus, in 
the Heidelberg Jahrbticher der Literatur, 1821, pp. 112f.3; J. R. Tobler, 
ZWT., 1360, pp. 169f., ascribing composition to Apollos; Karl von Hase’s 
Geschichte Jesu, 1876; Reuss, La Bible, vi., 1879; Sabatier, ESR. vii. 181 f. ; 
Ewald, Renan, and Weizsicker). It is one thing to postulate a general 
historical basis underlying some of the fogia and perhaps the incidents in the 
gospel, and quite another thing to work out in detail a theory of literary 
partition by means of which the Johannine tradition is disengaged from the 
later editorial expansion (so variously Schweitzer, das Euglm /oh. nach seinem 
inneren Werth u. seiner Bedeutung, 1841; Tobler’s de Zuglienfrage, 1858 ; 
Delff, Soltau, Wendt, and Spitta). 


Delffst earlier nucleus of the gospel consists mainly of the following 
passages :—108- 19-01 212-16, 18-20. 28-25 31_ 443 445 51-16. 80-47 690-86. 41-08. 60-71 71-36. 
45-02, 87-98. 40-44 12 161 121-16. 17-24, 81-82, B4-B7. 42-50 31-19, 21-88 7.1. 1840 γρ1-84. 


9-42 201-& 19-81, Wendt’s apostolic source, or Johannine logia, may be traced 


* Cp. Mew Light on Life of Jesus (1904), pp. 140-158. 

+ Spitta’s exhaustive analysis, with its Johannine Grundschrift (A) and its 
second and secondary source (B), both edited by the redactor, is no advance 
on its predecessors; its extra complexity is not warranted by the complexity 
of the data. 

1 Criticisms of Delff by Sanday (Zxp.‘ iv. 328f., v. 375f.), A. Meyer 
(7R., 1899, 255f., 295 f.), and Holtzmann (7ZZ., 1890, 588f.). The most 
permanent suggestion of Delff’s was that the author was a Jerusalemite disciple 
of Jesus, of priestly lineage, who after writing the gospel in Jerusalem worked 
in Ephesus as a διδάσκαλος and then re-edited his gospel (adding, ¢.g., ch. 21| 
for Asia Minor. This stands better than his linguistic analysis. 


560 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


for the most part ἰη---11-δ. 9-14. 16-18 518-16 (substance). 18-20 31.» 8-21 4712 (substance). 
13-18, 19-25 27. (2). 81-38 51-8. 5-7, 16-27. 30-32. Bda. 860-47 715-19, 21b-24 627-58 (substance). 60-61, 
63-64a, 65-69 71-7 (ἡ. 10-14 (substance). 25-27 (substance). 28-29, 83-43 () B12-20a, 21-29, 810-δθ gl. 
4-5. 39-41 101-18, 19-21a (substance). 23-38. 40 (ἢ 1.11. 8. ὅτ (ἡ. 7-10. 16. 17-22 (substance). 28-27. 
25-35 (substance). $8 y 220-28a, 81:82, 34-δδα. 44-470, 48-50 y 31-10, 12-17, 20, 810-88} ς. 16. 1387-88 
14, 17, 1853-38 1709.11 Similarly Soltau (ZVW., 1901, 140-149; SK., 1908, 
177-202), after putting on one side the material derived from the synoptic 
tradition (e.g, 119-38. 81-84 (85-42) 218-17. 19, 22 443-54 61-25. 66-71 gl. 6-28 1. 1 47-55 (57). 
28S ΤΟΙ Ὑ 250. 18 1g 85 42 20) 1118. 10:59) finds, the ongmals|onamaeae 
Logia (2.6. sayings with a historical introduction) in 11 @5-42). 48-61 29-11 31-12, 
22-Bla 41-ϑ (16-19). 29-30. 89-42 51-16 (18) 71. 81 2-11 (538-41 1720-93 (87-48) 32-15 (16-20). 81-86) 
19°87 2014-18. 25-29. Even the attractive shape into which Wendt has thrown 
the hypothesis of C. H. Weisse breaks down ;* the distinguishing data of the 
two sources are inadequate ; it is just in the discourses of Jesus that some of 
the least historical features of the gospel recur, and these cannot be eliminated 
without an arbitrary treatment of the text. The distinction, moreover, between 
the narratives (with their emphasis on σημεῖα) and the speeches (with ἔργα τε 
ῥήματα) cannot be carried through, for in the latter the ἔργα of Jesus are not 
severed entirely from the σημεῖα (cp. 67 %), whereas once at least in the 
narrative Jesus does not lay stress on his σημεῖα (2039), and in 7° (narrative) 
works are equivalent to signs and wonders.t The work of Jesus (174) was to 
manifest the glory of God (17%), and this surely included the manifestation of 
the divine life in the σημεῖα as well as in the words of the Son. In the light 
of 511 27] etc., it is not possible to confine work and working in the Fourth 
gospel to any specific line of activity such as that of preaching and teaching. 
The work to which Jesus refers in 77! is a miracle, and when 214 works of 
himself (5°°) and God (537) are ranked objectively with the testimony of the 
Baptist (5*°*4) and the Scriptures (533), those ἔργα, especially in the light of 
an allusion like that of 10%’, cannot be what Wendt’s theory demands. 


More help is to be secured by recognising that the addition 
of 21 to the gospel must have been accompanied by some further 
process of editing in the text of 1-20. The extent to which this 
was carried depends on the view taken of the ‘ beloved disciple’ 
and of the putative authorship, as well as on the theory adopted 
with regard to the First epistle. The author of the latter—it is 
a fair hypothesis—may have edited Jn 1-20 (Zurhellen adds the 
Apocalypse in 1-3, 21-22); but even this conjecture leaves us in 


* Cp. the critiques by Holtzmann (7ZZ., 1886, 197-200), Haupt (SX. 
1893, 217f.), Lock (77.5., 1903, 194-205), G. W. Stewart (Zxp., 1903, 65- 
80, 135-146), Corssen (G@GA., 1901, 645-656), Bacon (4/7., 1901, 146-148), 
Hitchcock (A/7., 1901, 146-148), Howlett (Dubin Review, 1904, 314-335), 
J. A. Cross (Z7., 1903, 331-333), Swete (Zxf., 1903, 267-282), Hargrove 
(H/. i. 410-412), and Schmiedel (247. 2554-2556). 

+ There is no evidence in the context that Jesus corrects this idea ot his 
brothers. He simply protests against their eagerness for a manifestation of 
power in Judea. 


LITERARY STRUCTURE 661 


the dark as to the precise extent and motives of the editorial 
revision which added 21124, and which has been traced in 12%3 
and 1882 as well as in 19%, in 528-29 (Scholten, Wendt, Zurhellen), 
649. 44. 64 7 1 25f. 7 43. 18b. 28> (Zurhellen), and in the editorial additions 
or marginal glosses already noted, 7.e. especially in the more 
eschatological and popular traits which distinguish the First epistle 
from the bulk of the gospel. A further application of this hypo- 
thesis attributes to it the beloved-disciple passages (Schwartz), 
while Schiitz, Wellhausen, and F. Westberg (Die Biblische Chrono- 
logie nach Flavius Josephus und das Todesjahr Jesu, 1910, 83f.), 
agree that the festival-journeys of Jesus have been interpolated in 
the original gospel, in order to lengthen out the ministry to three 
or four years. Wellhausen postulates a Galilean Grundschrift (A), 
with no speeches, composed by some anonymous author; but its 
resemblances to Mark do not serve to throw much light upon it, 
if the anonymous author (Zv. Joh. pp. 1o2f.) dealt freely with 
his prototype; and its Marcan character is not obvious, if it 
lacked teaching and stories of the healing ministry. It has also 
been worked over by a redactor (B), who draws especially on 
Matthew and Luke,* and reproduces dialogues and discourses of 
Jesus. The criteria for this are not more convincing than in the 
case of Wendt’s partition-theory. 

The outcome of our investigation is therefore negative and 
tentative on the whole. The central problems of the gospel lie 
beyond the reach of purely literary criticism, and no reconstruction 
of a supposed apostolic source does justice to the dual character- 
istics of the book. “In many sections,” as even Zahn admits 
(INT. iii. p. 337), “the narrative lacks the clearness and definite- 
ness which we should expect from an eye-witness.” ‘The whole 
nature of his employment of the synoptic literature is symptomatic 
of the secondary character of his history. An independent witness 
might, of course, have been acquainted with earlier presentations 
of the same history: his own might have coincided with them in 
its main features ; but, writing in the light of his own recollections 
and the impressions made on himself, he must have preserved 
some originality of detail. The fourth evangelist, on the other 


’ Bousset regards the Grundschrift as Lucan in tone, and ascribes to the 
redactor a predilection for Matthew. Thus, ‘‘im iibrigen charakterisiert 
sich die Perikope 1%? als eine freie Bearbeitung von Apg 13” und dem 
lukanischen Bericht iiber den Taufer, dem auch der Wortlaut 1%" am 
nachsten steht” (7'#. xii. 55). 

36 


562 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


hand, is dependent, even in minute details, on the earlier 
narrative” (Wendt, p. 48). This feature of a later age is even 
more marked in passages which have no synoptic parallels. 
Thus the dialogues, beginning with the introduction of some 
figure, pass over into a disquisition or monologue, in which the 
author voices, through Jesus, his own or rather the church’s 
consciousness, usually upon some aspect of the christology 
which is the dominant theme of the whole book. The original 
figure is forgotten; Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, or the 
Greeks serve as the point @appui, and presently the so-called 
conversation drifts over into a doctrinal meditation upon some 
aspect of Christ’s person, leaving the figure or figures in question 
without any record of Christ’s final attitude, or of the effect which 
he produced.* This method recurs even in the description of 
John’s cross-examination by the deputation from Jerusalem (1195). 
It precludes the idea that the author could have been an eye- 
witness of these scenes, or that he is reproducing such debates 
from memory. The interests of the writer lie in the dialectic of 
his faith rather than in the situation which he provides for its 
successive movements. 

The objection taken to this view of the Fourth gospel, viz. that there was 
no milieu for such controversial discussions, falls to the ground in presence 
of writings like Justin’s dialogue with Trypho, where the obscure origin of 
the Christ (viii., cx., cp. Jn 7°”), his birthplace (cviii., cp. Jn 7“), the 
question of Sabbath observance (xxiii., xxvi. f., xIvii. etc., cp. Jn 81% 7%), 
the coming of Elijah (xlix. f., cp. Jn 174), Jews and Samaritans (Ixxviii., ep. 
Jn 4, 8°), etc., are among the topics of contemporary interest (see 
above, p. 531). 

Over against these traits lie the indications already mentioned, 
which suggest that the author had access to some reliable his- 
torical traditions for his work. In view of such dual phenomena, 
the least objectionable hypothesis lies among those which 
postulate not only the influence of Alexandrian thought in the 
Asiatic church and the development of Pauline and post-Pauline 
conceptions, but a certain oral tradition (Johannine or not) upon 
the life of Jesus which had hitherto flowed apart from the ordinary 
channe!s of evangelic composition.t The logia of this tradition 


* An instance of this, in epistolary literature, occurs in Gal 2™-, 

+ So, after Wendt and others, Cone (Gospel Criticism and Historical 
Christianity, 1891, pp. 251f.: ‘* While on any hypothesis of its origin 
many critical problems remain unsolved, there is at least a strong probability 
for a Johaunine nucleus in the book, for frequ.nt ‘words of the Lord 


ALLUSIONS TO DISCIPLES 563 
cannot often be disentangled from their seiting. The discourses 
in which they are embodied represent the genius of a single 
writer, voicing the faith of his circle as well the ideas of his own 
mind. Nor is it possible to ascertain the exact literary channel 
by means of which these sayings and traditions have flowed into 
their pre-ent position through the homilies of the early church, 
any more than to estimate precisely the extent to which their 
original shape and colour have been altered, previous to their 
incorporation in this gospel, or during their passage through the 
rich, devout mind of the author (see pp. 43-44). But their 
gnomic character, their outstanding originality, and their pro- 
found depth, prove that the dramatic and creative genius of 
the author had materials to draw upon* in composing the 
meditations and illustrations of Jesus which distinguish this 
gospel from the synoptists. 

ὃ ὃ. Zhe Beloved disciple and others.—The mixture of 
adherence to the synoptic tradition and imaginative freedom in 
its treatment comes out (4) in the author’s references to the 
disciples, and (4) in his allusions to the family of Jesus. 


Peter, in accordance with the dominant tradition, still occupies a certain 
position of primacy among the disciples. Alluded to before he comes on te 
scene (1), he is still their spokesman upon occasion, plays a prominent réle 
at the last supper (13%) 24% 861.) and in the closing scenes (18!%27), and, in 
accordance with primitive tradition (1 Co 15°, cp. Lk 244), has his own access 
to the risen Lord (Jn 217°*).f Andrew is Szmon Peter's brother (14 68), and 
Jesus calls him Aefhas from the outset—a proof not only of divine prescience 
but of Peter’s pre-eminence as the bulwark of the church, of which he is the 
(κυριακὰ λόγια) handed down from the apostle without connection, probably, 
and without a historical setting. . . . The attentive reader finds on almost 
every page of the Gospel words which are probably genuine Johannine logia 
of Jesus”), and O. Holtzmann (Leden Jesu, Eng. tr. p. 46: “Αἴ the time 
that he composed his work the traditions of the life of Christ had not yet 
become crystallised in the church’s faith. Hence the current of the evangelic 
narrative was still able to carry along with it much material that had not been 
utilised by the synoptists ”). 

* «Tt may be said with certainty that a literary artist capable of inventing 
the most striking sayings of Jesus to Nicodemus or to the woman of Samaria 
would have made his composition as a whole more flawless, more artistically 
perfect than the Fourth gospel actually is. Judged from an artist’s point of 
view, it has blots and awkwardnesses which a master of imaginative invention 
would never have suffered his work to exhibit”? (M. Arnold). 

ft In 20*8, however, it is suggested that while ‘he other disciple entered 
the tomb and believed, Peter had eitered wittiout believing (on the early 
attempts in Syr* to correct 20° into the plurai, cp. Dzat. 1556f.). 


564 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


spokesman (6%), The author thus not only throws back Mt 1678 so as ta 
cover Peter’s career from the beginning, but omits the subsequent rebuke 
(thou Satan!) of Mt 16%, and associates the devil not with Peter, but with 
Judas Iskariot (67! 13% 27), 

The remarkable prominence of Andrew, as compared with his position in 
the synoptic tradition (where he stands second to Peter in the apostolic lists 
of Mt. and Lk.), appears in three places, 1 6% and 127, (a) He is not 
only one of the first two disciples (of John the Baptist) who joined Jesus, but 
is the first disciple named in the gospel; he brings his brother Peter to Jesus, 
and Bethsaida is expressly called ¢he city of Andrew and Peter. (6) He 
volunteers information to Jesus about the food-supply—another detail which 
the synoptic tradition omits. (c) Finally, he acts as intermediary between the 
Greek inquirers and Jesus. These allusions, corroborated by the traditions 
(e.g. Papias, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of the Twelve) of the second century,* 
indicate that Andrew, like Philip, was an important figure for the (Asiatic) 
circle in which the Fourth gospel circulated. The latter is the first disciple 
whom Jesus finds (1*). Andrew’s confession of faith is the first in the gospel, 
We have found the messiah, but Philip’s is more explicit: We have found 
him of whom Moses wrote in the law and of whom the prophets wrote, Jesus 
the son of Joseph, from Nazareth. He is prominent at the feeding of the 
multitude near his native place (6%), and it is he to whom the Greek 
inquirers first apply (127). On all these occasions he is associated more or 
less closely with his fellow-townsman, Andrew ; in his request for a theophany 
(14°) he is alone, but it is possible that he and Andrew are the anonymous 
pair of disciples in 213, 

Thomas, who has no independent r6le in the synoptic tradition, comes 
into prominence in the final Judean cycle of stories in the Fourth gospel, at 
1116 14° and 20-8 ; in the appendix he is mentioned, next to Peter (217), 
among the disciples to whom Jesus appeared after death in Galilee. It is 
curious that John only mentions ‘the twelve’ four times, and always ‘in 
connection with some mention of treachery, possible desertion, or unbelief’ ; 
he significantly widens (137°) the saying recorded in Mt 10=Lk 1078, and 
apparently ranks Nathanael almost on a level with the twelve, some of whom 
he entirely ignores (cp. Déat. 1671, 1695). The absence of N. from the 
synoptic lists of the twelve, together with the fact that Philip in the latter is 
followed by Bartholomew, has suggested that B. and N. represent the same 
person, B. being the patronymic name (so, ¢.g., Keim, Renan, Calmes, and 
Zahn) ; the similarity of the name has led others (¢.g., Resch, 7U. x. 3. 
829 f.; Rohrbach, Berichte auf ad. Auferstehung, §1{.; Weizsiicker) to identify 
him with Matthew Levi, which has the merit of reproducing the Papias-list ; 
the details Ὁ in 1“ have led others again to see in him a symbolical figure of 


* In one Coptic (Akhmim) fragment of a second century (A.D. 150-180) 
anti-gnostic gospel (ed. Schmidt, SBBA., 1895, 705-711), Andrew appears 
with Peter and Thomas in a scene corresponding to that of Jn 20%, while in 
another gnostic fragment (ed. Schmidt, SBBA., 1896, pp. 839 f.) he plays a 
similar r6le of incredulity. 

+ Abbott (Déat. 3375-3377) regards the story as a version of the story of 
Zacchzeus in the sycamore tree. 


ALLUSIONS TO DISCIPLES 565 


Paul or Paulinism (Honig, ZW7., 1884, 110f.; Holtzmann, BL. iv. 294f ; 
O. Schmiedel, Hauptprobleme d. Leben-Jesu*, 22f., 117 f. 3 Kreyenbiihl, 1]. 
353f.; E. F. Scott, pp. 47f. etc.), the Paul who, a genuine Israelite, 
worshipping under the unsatisfactory fig-tree of Judaism, was called by Christ 
(Ac 228=Jn 18), and broke through the prejudices of his early environment to 
win personal intercourse with Jesus and to utter a greater confession of faith 
in the divine Son than his predecessors in the apostolate. But in view of 
Gal 11" 151... a later writer would hardly have described Paul’s approach to 
Jesus as mediated by any human agency (Jn 1*: 48), and even the desire of 
emphasising the apostolic prestige would not have made the agency apostolic ; 
he would rather have chosen terms like those of 1. Besides, visions were 
not a special feature of Paul’s apostolate (2 Co 117! 12'), and the call of Paul 
was not motived as in Jn 1% (note εἶδον, not ἐκάλεσα or ἐφωνήσα). It would 
be more plausible to identify him with the beloved disciple John (so, e.g., 
Spaeth, ZWT7., 1868, 168f., 309f., and Rovers, 77., 1869, 653-661). 
This would imply that the references in Jn 21 are from another plane of 
thought, though, if the note in 21? is correct, it helps to fill out the connection 
between 1“ and 21." 

It is often argued that by the πρῶτον or πρῶτος of 171 the writer subtly 
suggests that after Andrew found his brother Peter, the other disciple of 
155-40 found ἀξ brother ; consequently, as the sons of Zebedee were the only 
other pair of brothers who (according to the synoptic tradition) were among 
the earliest disciples of Jesus, and as the Fourth gospel never mentions them 
by name, their calling is implied here (so, ¢g., Westcott, Godet, Zahn, 
Calmes; cp. Abbott, Dzat. 1720, 1901). The Fourth gospel is full of subtle 
touches, but this is hyper-subtle. John plays no independent or special réle 
in the synoptic tradition; he and his brother James are called (Mk 113-30) 
after Peter and Andrew ; in the lists of the twelve he comes fourth (except in 
Mk 31618 where Andrew falls from the second to the fifth place, as in Mk 13? 
to the fourth); the only occasion on which he acts as spokesman for the 
twelve (Mk 9%-41=Lk 9%9°5°) exposes him to a rebuke for having failed to 
appreciate the generous temper of Jesus, and the presumptuous claim 
advanced by himself and his brother (Mk 10%, softened by Mt 20”) 
betrays an equal misconception. He is third in the group of the four 
disciples who draw from Jesus (Mk 13%") his prophecy of the future, and in 
the group of three who fail Jesus in Gethsemane (Mk 14% = Mt 26%) ; but: 
neither at the last supper, nor during the trial, nor after the death of Jesus, 
does he appear. On the other hand, there are slight traces in Lk. of a higher 
place (contrast 8° with Mk 5%’, 9°°= Mk g? and Mt 17?) next to Peter in the 
only two scenes (raising of daughter of Jairus, and the transfiguration) where 
Peter and the sons of Zebedee appear as a trio of intimates, before the vigil in 
Gethsemane. Furthermore, Lk. omits the claim of Mk 10*, though he was 
aware of it (cp. 124 22°%4—Mt 20™f-), identifies the two confidential 
disciples of Mk 1418 (Mt 2617: simply of μαθηταί) with Peter and John (227-44), 
omits the fact (Mk 1435 = Mt 26*7f-) that Peter and the two sons of Zebedee 


* To Loisy (246f.), N. is a composite figure, idealised out of Matthew, 
Zaccheus, ancl Paul. The identity of N. with Matthew and Zacchzus was 
first suggested by Strauss. 


366 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


slept in Gethsemane and were rebuked by Jesus (22°), and that all the 
disciples fled after their Master was arrested (Mk 14°=Mt 26°), and adds to 
the women at the cross (Mk 15%-4!=Mt 27°58) πάντες οἱ γὙνωστοὶ airy 
standing at a distance (223). This is carried forward in Acts, where John is 
closely associated with Peter (118 315 418 814-15) during the early Jerusalemite 
period (cp. Gal 2°) in the leadership of the church. He then drops into 
gblivion ; the control of the Jerusalemite church passes into the hands of 
James, the brother of Jesus. He is absent from the Fourth gospel, unless he 
is the beloved (or, other) disciple. Comparatively little is made of the latter 
figure, except to hint at his pre-eminence in one or two scenes (adapted froin 
the synoptic tradition) where Peter is prominent.* At the last supper (137%) 
this favourite disciple is assumed to be in the secret of Jesus, as none of the 
others is. During the trial (1815) Peter again requires his intervention, 
this time to gain entrance to the palace of the high priest. At the cross 
(19%) he receives charge of the mother of Jesus (mission to Jewish 
Christians ?) +t and witnesses the Ausmor effusus; at the grave (205) he is the 
first to see the empty tomb and then believe, ζ.4, without requiring to see the 
risen Christ. The empty tomb was enough for him; all else, OT proofs 
and even the witness of the women, was secondary. 

The possibility of a mystical reference in all (except 1.835.) of these 
passages does not exclude—in fact it would rather point to—a literal basis. 
If by the disciple whom Jesus loved (ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ ᾿Τησοῦς) the author means to 
suggest the typical or ideal Christian, a permanent witness to Christ’s love 
(ill I come, 21), the ideal is in part a Pauline ideal (= Gal 2”); so, ag., 
Bacon (Exp.” iv. 324f., Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, 301 f.),¢ who 
declares that ‘‘ the heart of the Fourth Gospel is Paul’s confession of his faith 
in Gal 2” ” (p. 326), and that ‘‘ when we can be satisfied to take this Gospel 
for what it is, the richest, choicest Hower of the spiritual life of the Pauline 
churches a half-century after Paul’s death . . . a new era will begin in the 
appreciation of this great Gospel.” The choice lies between identifying the 
beloved disciple with John the apostle§ or John a Jerusalemite (Delf, 
Bousset, etc.), and regarding him as ideal. The chief objections to the latter 


* He is never contrasted with sceptical Jews or imperfect Christians. 

+ Vélter (Water Dolorosa und der Lieblingsjiinger des Johannes Evgims, 
Mit einem Anhang tiber die Komposttion dieses Evglm, 1907) makes the 
beloved disciple in 1-20 the John Mark of Ac 12"; the gospel is to prove 
that he was not a mere interpreter of Peter, but superior to him. In 21, 
however, the beloved disciple is the Ephesian presbyter. This is great 
honour done to John Mark (see above, p. 512). 

Δ “ὙΠ artist who paints an ideal figure has a model, but what he aims to 
delineate is not the model.” While the beloved disciple originally was an 
ideal figure (according to Bacon), partially drawn from Paul, the editor of 
the appendix identified him with the apostle. 

§ An idealised figure of the historical John (Scholten, op. ¢#¢. 397 f.) is as 
adequate an explanation as perhaps any other; the title is a play upon the 
meaning of the name. Similarly we may feel the inwardness of Nikodemus 
and the Samaritan woman as tvpes of Judaism uniting belief and the love of 
wonders, and the more susceptille paganism of the age. 


AUTHORSHIP 567 


view are the psychological difficulty of conceiving how an abstract figure 
could be put side by side with the other disciples, and the fact that, in the 
Jerusalem-scenes, Delft’s hypothesis has considerable plausibility. 

(ὁ) The sisters of Jesus are ignored, but his brothers are introduced as 
different from his disciples (2!) and sceptical of his claims (71-!°), a practical 
illustration of 111-13, The coolness of the relations between them and the 
Logos-Christ is developed in the case of his mother, whose earthly relation- 
ship is carefully detached from the higher interests of the Logos-Christ on the 
only two occasions on which she is mentioned (2* 19-27), The symbolic 
significance of the mother is evident in both places. Taken literally, the two 
passages may be held not only to conflict with historical probability, but to 
reveal an aloofness which it is psychclogically difficult to associate with Jesus. 
The presence of Mary at the cross may be a deduction from Ac 14, and both 
scenes possibly reflect a dramatised variant of Mk 3%! etc., introduced for 
the purpose of differentiating the new religion from its parent stock. In the 
former, the Logos-Christ denies that he has anything in common with his 
family ; in the latter he finally loosens the nearest tie of earthly relationship, 
It is only when the narratives are taken as symbolic rather than as a mere 
record of fact that their full meaning emerges. 

§ 9. Zhe authorship.—The fourth gospel makes no statement 
about its author. It ends with the remark, ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται 
iva πιστεύητε, but it is silent upon ὁ γράψας. The appendix, 
however, after describing the destiny of the μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὃ 
Ἰησοῦς, adds in an editorial note (21%): οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς 
ὃ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων καὶ 6 γράψας ταῦτα. Unless the last four 
words are to be regarded as an interpolation (so, e.g., von Soden), 
the beloved disciple, who only appears definitely in the closing 
days of Christ’s life, is claimed not simply as the authority for the 
whole gospel (to which ταῦτα here refers), but as its author. 
But guts custodiet custodes? This claim is not made by him- 
self;* it comes from the anonymous circle who endorse the 
gospel (καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν), and who 
have added the two closing notes (2132:25), both of which 
indicate that the gospel had been, or might be expected to be, 
criticised for its unique contents (so different, eg., from the 
synoptic tradition) and for its incompleteness. The latter 
criticism has been already met by anticipation in 20%8!; the 
former is to be felt at 1935, the only passage in the gospel which 
definitely connects the author with an eye-witness. Here, after 
the soldier has pierced the side of Jesus with a lance, causing 
blood and water to pour out of the wound, the narrative 
continues: and he who saw tt has borne witness (καὶ ὃ ἑωρακὼς 

* For attempts to preserve part of these verses for John, cp. Wetzel (op. 
cet. pp. 15 f.). 


568 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


μεμαρτύρηκεν), and his witness is true,—yea, he knows that ke 1s 
telling the truth (καὶ ἐκεῖνος οἷδεν ὅτι ἀληθῆ r€yer),—that you also 
may believe. Is ἐκεῖνος, in this enigmatic protest, a human 
authority or, by a strong asseveration (cp. 2 Co 1112-81), the 
exalted Christ (so, eg., Dechent, SX., 1899, 448f.; Abbott, 
EBi. 1809; Zahn, Kommentar, 658 f.; Peake, London Quart. 
Review, 1905, 275 ; Forbes, Haussleiter’s Zwei Apost. Zeugen, 26-- 
28)? When the mystic or symbolic sense of αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ is 
connected in any way with 1 Jn 5°, the divine rference of 
ἐκεῖνος becomes rather more probable, since in 1 Jn. the pronoun 
always means the exalted Christ. Still, the connection is 
different here, and upon the whole ἐκεῖνος may be reasonably 
regarded as equivalent to 6 ἑωρακὼς, the beloved disciple of 197°, 
This would imply (4) that the writer was or wished to be-taken 
for (so, 4... Renan, Jiilicher, Loisy) the said eye-witness, or (0) 
that he appeals to this earlier authority in order to corroborate a 
statement which he anticipates will rouse suspicion (so, ¢g., 
Hilgenfeld, Weisse, Harnack, Weizsicker, von Soden, Wendt, 
Pfleiderer, J. Réville, Calmes, Schmiedel, Wellhausen). 


Physiologically, it is possible that water mixed with blood issued from 
some wheal or bleb on the surface of the body, which the lance pierced, “ but 
blood and water from an internal source are a mystery” (Dr. C. Creighton, 
EBi. 960-961), or, as Origen called it, τὸ παράδοξον (c. Cels. ii. 36). The 
main point, however, is that the writer’s religious interpretation of the 
phenomenon which he records is not anti-doketic (as in 1 Jn 5°),—the effusion 
of blood would have sufficed for that purpose,—but symbolical. The object 
of 193!-87 is to clinch the proof that Jesus died as the true paschal Lamb, of 
which no bone was to be broken. This rounds off the isolated testimony of 1”, 
and explains the symbolism of the blood and water as the evidence of spiritual 
life issuing from the death of the Christ; the effusion of blood signifies the 
removal of sins, the effusion of water the impartation of life eternal, and the 
collocation of both indicates that these are vitally connected in the work of Christ. 

This would be confirmed if ὁ πιστεύων els ἐμέ in 738 were taken with καὶ 
πινέτω of 7% (cp. Nestle, ZVIV., 1909, 323), and αὐτοῦ referred not to the 
individual believer but to the Christ (so, é.g., Grill, 16 ; Loisy, Calmes, Forbes, 
Westcott), as was apparently the view of the Gallic Christians ¢. A.D. 576 
(Eus. 27. 2. v. 1. 22) and possibly Cyprian amongst others.* The author makes 

* All three points, Christ as the source of living water, believers not only 
as the recipients but transmitters of it, and the identification of it with the 
Spirit, are represented in the third ode of Solomon in the Péstis Sophia, an 
ode which (cp. Ryle and James, Zhe Psalms of Solomon, pp. 1571. τ R. 
Harris, Zhe Odes and Psalms of Solomon, 12-13) is tinged with Johannine 
rather than specifically gnostic colours, and is probably to be dated not lates 
than the first half of the second century A.D, 


Au FHUKSHIP 569 


Jesus refer to himself as αὐτοῦ, because the passage (see p. 33) is a prophetic 
quotation, with a proleptic allusion to the Spirit which was not to be poured 
out upon believers until Jesus was glorified (737=20%). On the other hand, 
when 7% is read with ὁ πιστεύων els ἐμέ as equivalent to the following αὐτοῦ, 
the conception of the believer as a source of spiritual blessing for others tallies 
with 2072-3, especially if the μαθηταί of the latter scene are not restricted to 
the apostles. 


19% is therefore, as Blass warned critics (SX., 1902, 128 f.), 
a foundation of sand upon which to build any critical theory of 
this gospel’s origin, whether the verse should be relegated to the 
margin (¢, fuld. om.) or not. Its use is to prove not the presence 
of an eye-witness, but the spiritual testimony or interpretation 
which is the essential aim of the writer. Furthermore, the verse 
is so closely connected with 21%, that either the editor of the 
appendix must have moulded his words on the former passage, 
or inserted the latter (so, ¢g., Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research 
and Debate, 171 f.)* as a paraphrase of 3 Jn 12 and 1 Jn 5°F 
The latter alternative is preferable. If 19% 37 are omitted 
(with the opening and un-Johannine ἐγένετο yap ταῦτα of v.**), 
the sense is clear: οὐ κατέαξαν αὐτοῦ τὰ σκέλη, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ 
πληρωθῇ" ὀστοῦν ov συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ (so, eg., Schwartz, 
Wellhausen, Heitmiiller). The interpolation in vv.*% tallies 
substantially with 2174, the main difference being the substitution 
of ἐκεῖνος οἶδεν for οἴδαμεν. V.87, with its un-Johannine ἑτέρα 
γραφή, points to the circle from which Apoc 17 (cp. Mt 24%) 
originated, though the quotation is differently applied (there 
eschatological, here historical). On the other hand, it must be 
allowed that the mere omission of v.95 (with καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς 
αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ in 85, and ἐγένετο yap ταῦτα in 36) gives an equally 
good sense, and at the same time avoids the necessity of 
regarding 20?’ as another interpolation (or part of one). 

Unless John the presbyter is brought in (cp. besides 
Harnack, etc., S. Eck in Preuss. Jahrb., 1898, 25-45), the author 
of Jn 1-20 and the editor who revised it and added the 

* According to Bacon, R. (the Ephesian editor) identified the nameless 
elder who composed the Fourth gospel and the epistles with the beloved 
disciple. It is too drastic to regard (so, ¢.g., Schwartz and Bousset) the 
‘beloved disciple’ passages as editorial insertions—an analysis which, among 
other results, would leave Judas with little else than the bag, in the original 
draft of the gospel. On the other hand, no theory of an apostolic 


Grundschrift, or even of a ‘Johannine’ source for narratives or logia, has yet 
been worked out with any approach to probability. 


570 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


appendix are both unknown. The former, like the writer of 
Matthew, was one of the anonymous early Christian authors, 
probably of Jewish origin, who were content to sink their names 
in their great cause and subject. All we can discover is the 
general traits and tendencies of his mind, as these may be 
supposed to come out in his work. It is not a paradox to say 
that nothing in his pages necessarily implies, while several 
features practically forbid the conjecture that he was an eye- 
witness. ‘‘ His mastery of midrashic method, especially that of 
a ‘spiritualising’ Alexandrian type, reminds us of an Apollos; 
his attitude towards Stoic conceptions and to some of the 
commonplaces of Greek philosophy recalls the venerable Ephesian 
teacher of Justin Martyr. All reasonable inferences of this kind 
have value in proportion as they help us to understand the 
author, his task and his times” (Bacon, Fourth Gospel, 464). It 
may be a convincing proof of the superiority of Christianity, 
that, “when the exquisite Greek word-science, the brilliant 
dialectic, the dramatic colouring, of the alluring life, the exalted 
death, the perfect self-sacrifice, of the Platonic Socrates had 
failed altogether to influence the masses of mankind, the religion 
of Jesus, springing from a despised unlettered people, triumphed 
over the world”; but, in view of writings like Hebrews, the 
writings of Luke, the epistle of Diognetus, the Apology of 
Aristides, and above all the Fourth gospel, it is incorrect to 
describe the religion of Jesus, in its initial approach to the 
ancient world, as “dressed in nothing that made it attractive 
to the cultured intellect.” * The Fourth gospel represents the 
first serious attempt to re-state the primitive faith for some wider 
circles who were susceptible to Hellenic influences, and the 
author, in translating the gospel of Jesus for their benefit, shows 
himself a master not only in his selection of the matter he had 
to convey, but in his grasp of the language in which he had to 
reproduce his beliefs. 

§ 10. Zhe appendix.t—The epilogue or appendix (ch. 21) 


* J. H. Shorthouse, Literary Remains (1905), p. 229. 

1 Special literature : Hoekstra (7771, 1867, 407-424, ‘het laatste Hoofdstuk 
van het vierde Evangelié’); Eberhardt, Hvang. Joh. c. 21 (1897); Klopper 
(ZWT., 1899, 337-381); Zahn, 1.77. (§ 66); Wendt (pp. 248-253); 
J. Réville (305-320); Moffatt, ANZ. 694 f.; Horn, Adfassungszett, Gesch- 
ichlichkeit, und Zweck von Ev. Joh. Kap. 21 (1904); Bacon, Fourth Gospei 
wn Research and Debate (1910), 190 f., 211 f. (due to revision at Rome), 


THE APPENDIX 571 


describes a Galilean appearance of the risen Jesus to seven of 
his disciples, which falls into two parts. In the former (2114), 
Jesus enables the disciples to secure, with unbroken net, an 
astonishing take of fish, and then provides them with a meal 
upon the beach. In the second part (2115-23), which describes 
the conversation after the meal (cp. Merx, PAL, 1898, 154- 
160), Peter is restored to his vocation, while the destinies of 
Peter and the beloved disciple are contrasted. Finally, an 
editorial note (vv.?45) youches for the beloved disciple as the 
authority and author of the gospel. and also apologises for its lack 
of completeness (cp. Diat. 2414-2416, and Lucretius, i. 410 f.). 
The naive hyperbole of the latter verse is quite consonant with 
contemporary rabbinism (see Bacher’s Agada d. Tannaiten?, i, 
24 f., for a striking parallel from Jochanan b. Zakkai). The 
former opens up at a stroke the problem of the gospel’s origin 
and authorship. 

The true climax to the gospel is 209981, which Tertullian 
(adv. Prax. 25) called its “clausula.” Had the author originally 
meant to add the contents of 21, he would have transferred the 
“clausula” to a place after 2114 or 2173 (Ὁ (Zahn), as indeed 
Dr. Rendel Harris (ew Testament Autographs, pp. 14 f.) once 
proposed to do, on the ground that v.° implies an insufficient 
amount of writing material (cp. 2 Jn 13, 3 Jn 13). After 2030-31 
anything further is almost an anti-climax. The seven σημεῖα are 
complete. Jesus has appeared thrice after death. The disciples 
have all received their commission (not to baptize, cp. Mt 2819 
above, p. 253, and ERE. ii. 380). 

(a) Was the gospel edited posthumously, like Vergil’s Aenezd, 
by some friend or friends of the author (sesmmatim emendata) ? 
On this hypothesis (Weiss, Reuss, Eberhardt, Bovon, etc.), the 
epilogue might be the work of Philip and Andrew (21? cp. 14° 651 
12°0f, so Haussleiter *), or of Andrew alone (Chastand). (4) Or, 
was the appendix added by John himselff as a deliberate 

* Both Haussleiter and Horn, however, hold that the appendix was 
written during the lifetime and with the sanction of John, so that their 
views really approximate to (4). Kenyon (//abé to Text. Crit. of NT, pp. 
27f.) represents a popular opinion in concluding that the gospel, after 
being dictated by the apostle, ‘‘seems to have been finally issued by a 
Committee of the church of Ephesus.” 

+ As a curiosity of criticism, one may record the hypothesis of 
P.F. Vigelius (Hist. krtt. Onderzoeh naar den Schrijver von Joh. xxi., Leiden. 
1871), that the epilogue, but not the gospel, came from the hand of John, 


572 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


finalé to his gospel (so, ¢.g,. Luthardt, Godet, Westcott, Lightfoot 
Plummer, Schanz, Becker, Drummond, Lepin, Sanday)? Οἱ 
(c) was it added by the unknown and anonymous author of the 
gospel to a work which he had already finished (so, e.g., Renan, 
Hilgenfeld, Thoma, Baljon, Jacobsen, Jiilicher)? The view 
that it was not written by the author of the gospel is upon the 
whole more probable than any of these theories, even than 
the last. As the writer belonged to the “Johannine circle,” 
and as he was composing an appendix to the gospel, his style 
naturally approximates to that of the work which he is editing, 
but, even within the brief space of the appendix, idiosyncrasies 
of language and style appear which are practically sufficient 
to indicate another hand:* e.g. δεξιός, ἐκτείνω χεῖρας, ἐκ τρίτου, 
ἐπιστρέφω, ἐξετάζω, ἰσχύω, τολμάω, τρίτον (adv.), of ἀδελφοί, ὑπάγω 
with infinitive, παιδία for τεκνία, πρωία for πρωΐ, ἐγερθείς for 
ἀναστάς, and φέρειν for ἄγειν (ν.18) ; ἐπὶ in ν.} is different from the 
ἐπὶ of 619-21 (cp. Diat. 2340-2342) ; φανερόω (vv. 14) is unusually 
employed to describe a resurrection appearance (cp. Mk 161% 14) ; 
the éay after ὅστις in v.% also corresponds to the use in 1 Jn 
329 rather than to Jn 2° 1418 1515, and the disciples are described 
in synoptic rather than Johannine style (Peter a fisherman, the 
sons of Zebedee). ‘The date of the passage—if appreciably 
different from that of the gospel—must have been early enough 
to allow of its incorporation into the archetype of all existing 
texts (not before a.D. 180, Krenkel; not before a.p. 155, Erbes 
in ZAG., 1901, 10-11, as unknown to Irenzus). Several of 
those who insist that it formed an integral part ¢ of the gospel, 
however, use this conclusion in order to, bring the whole work 
down pretty far into the second century (particularly Thoma 
and Jacobsen), and Keim dates its composition ¢ A.D. 160, 
previous to 2 P 114, in the age when the cult of John was 
rising in Asia Minor. Probably it is to be dated not long after 
the Fourth gospel itself, in the first half of the second century. 

*So, ¢.g., Baur, Schwegler (WZ. ii. 355 f.), Scholten, Keim, Klépper, 
Pfleiderer, Chastand (L’Apétre Jean, 98-104), J. Réville, Loisy, Weiss, 
J. Weiss, Bacon, Loofs, Schwartz, Schmiedel, Bruston (Revue de Théol. et de 
Philos., 1906, 501 f.), Heitmiiller, etc. 

+ Especially when its contents are interpreted allegorically as representa- 
tions of the latter church and its experiences, as, ¢.g., by Keim (vi. pp. 313- 
318) and Pfleiderer. Chastand (Z’Afétre Jean, pp. 98-104) regards it as the 


work of a later hand, but a fruit of the apostle’s oral teaching: ‘‘ Nous er 
faisons comme le codicille qui accompagne le testament de l’apétre.” 


THE APPENDIX 873 


The appendix falls into three parts (21}4 2115-38 2124-25), 
which are more or less closely linked together. 

(i.) The failure of the disciples to recognise Jesus, which 
comes in awkwardly after 20%4f, shows that originally the story of 
211-14 was the first* of a Galilean series of appearances. The 
abrupt and unmotived change of place, from Jerusalem to 
Galilee, suggests that the writer or editor desired to harmonise 
the two lines of tradition upon the resurrection-appearances of 
Jesus, but it is more easy to feel this motive than to trace its 
mode of operation. 


Loofs (aie Auferstehungsberichte und thr Wert, pp. 31f.) regards 211-14 
as based originally on a pre-resurrection story, which has been misplaced 
and combined with a (non-Galilean) post-resurrection appearance to Peter 
(215-18; cp. Resch, TU. x. 4, pp. 47 f., 195 f.). The main theories of 211}, 
however, associate it either (z) with the lost conclusion of Mark’s gospel, or 
(6) with Lk 54, (a) Upon the former hypothesis, it is argued that the 
passage represents a more or less freely edited form of the lost ending to 
Mk.’s gospel (Rohrbach, pp. 52f. ; Harnack, 4CZ. ii. 1. 696f., and BVT. i. 
227 f.; Eberhardt, 81-83 ; Loisy ;f von Dobschiitz, Probleme d. ap. Zettalter, 
14 f.3; H. Schmidt, SX., 1907, 487), or, more probably, a variant of the 
same tradition (Wendt, Kirsopp Lake, pp. 143 f; Heitmiiller). If Mk.’s 
gospel was ever finished, it must have included a Galilean vision (167) in 
which Peter played a prominent (perhaps an exclusive) réle; but even if this 
were equivalent (cp. Meltzer, P’/., 1902, 147-156) to 1 Co 15°5=Lk 24%, it 
would not correspond with the narrative of Jn 211} (where Peter is not the 
first or the only one to see the Lord, and where it is not the eleven disciples 
who are present). If Mk.’s original conclusion is to be felt anywhere, it is 
(see pp. 239 f.) in Mt 28 rather than in Jn 21 (so especially, against Rohrbach, 
Schmiedel, #42. 4054-4055). (ὁ) But possibly the story is based on the 
tradition of Lk 5!" (so many editors and critics, from Strauss and Weisse 
to Brandt, Avang. Geschichte, 401 f.; Klopper, Pfleiderer, Ure. ii. 390; 
A. Meyer, Wellhausen, Forbes, etc.). The ordinary view of the Lucan 
story is to find a symbolic representation of Peter undertaking the mission 


* The rehabilitation of Peter also is more tardy than might be expected, 
‘One is inclined to sacrifice the historical accuracy of the writer of this 
appendix to the Fourth gospel, so that one may identify this meeting of Jesus 
and Peter with that mentioned in Luke’s gospel (24%). One may ask, would 
Peter unpardoned have been found in the apostolic company? Could the 
loving heart ef Jesus have left him so long uncomforted? The incident loses 
much of its significance if placed at a later date and after another meeting 
with Jesus; surely the restoration to apostleship must have taken place at 
the first and not the second meeting ” (Garvie, Zxf.7, July 1907, p. 18). 

+ Loisy (Syn. Evang. i. 444 f.) explains its presence here as due to Luke’s 
deliberate omission of the Galilean appearances and at the same time to his 
desire to conserve the story on account of its symbolic value. He conserved 
it by using it not for the rehabilitation, but for the original call of Peter, 


574 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


to the Gentiles only at the express command of Jesus (cp. Ac r1o™) and 
requiring Paul or the other apostles to assist him (57), while the broken net 
is supposed to imply the rupture between the Jewish and the Gentile 
Christians, and so forth (v.2=Gal 2°). Loisy, who recognises the improba- 
bility of a definite symbolism in details, agrees with Holtzmann and others 
that the unsuccessful night’s fishing is ‘‘sans doute une allusion ἃ l’insuccés 
de la prédiction apostolique auprés les Juifs”—a strange allusion in face of 
Ac 251. |1 The mission to the Gentiles, which shines through both Lk 5. 
and Jn 2113 js, however, as unmistakable as the fact of some connection 
between the two stories or traditions, particularly when that of Jn 21)" is 
recognised (as, ¢.g., by Loofs) to have originally represented a pre-resurrection 
incident which had no connection with Jn 21, It is noticeable that 
Luke (5!!!) substitutes for Mk 17620=Mt 41822 a call which not only puts 
Peter first (before James and John), but makes a miraculous draught of fishes 
the occasion for a confession of sinfulness on the part of Peter which Jesus 
turns into an assurance of his apostolic vocation. This was probably the 
theme which suggested the tradition of the following story in 211, 

It is doubtful if even 21!" is a unity as it stands, though the analyses of 
its composite character have not yet reached any measure of agreement; cp. 
Soltau, who finds two strata in 212-8 11 and 219: 12-14, Ἡ, Schmidt (SX, 
1907, 487-512), who traces the dual background in Lk 541! and Lk 24", 
and Volter (Die Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu, 1910, pp. 


52) who detects the redactor’s hand in 21° 1011 and the source in 211% * 
12a, 18. 120 


(ii.) The rehabilitation of Peter, with the prediction of his 
death and of that of the beloved disciple (21155), is a symbolic 
fragment which has no synoptic analogue,* but 212% may be 
interpreted in the light of a synoptic logion. 


The fact that the words in 21% Jf J choose that he should survive till 
7 come, are immediately followed by an allusion to authorship (v.*4) has 
suggested the hypothesis that they refer to the latter form of activity and 
influence. (a) Thus Irenzeus took the words as a reference to the apocalypse, 
with its reiterated allusions to the Lord’s coming ; on this form of the theory 
(so variously Bengel, Ebrard, and Luthardt), John survived to see the Lord’s 
coming at the fall of Jerusalem. (6) Strauss even less probably suggests that 
μένειν meant the permanence of John’s teaching, which was to outlive the 
Petrine tradition.f This is the idea of 21%, where the witness (μαρτυρῶν) 
is the permanent function fulfilled by the gospel once written (γράψας) ; the 
disciple, though dead, yet speaketh, It is just conceivable that the terms 


* Schwartz’s (ZVW., 1910, 96 f.) theory that 21!*!7 is a doublet to Mt 
16) sounds far-fetched. 

+ Schwartz (48 f.) fantastically refers μένειν in v.™ to the later legend of 
John lying incorruptible in the grave (cp. Corssen’s ed. of the third century 
Monarchian Prologues, p. 102), and makes v.* the later addition of a scribe 
who mistook it for a reference to the Parousia. The ἀκολουθεῖν of Peter is 
no proper antithesis to this, however, and the legend is not mentioned in 
the Leucian Acta. 


THE APPENDIX ἘΠΕ 


sight apply to him when still alive, though in this case we should have one 
thority being certificated by a lesser. But the natural impression made 
by 217 is that the beloved disciple has died. Jesus did mo¢ will that he 
should survive till the second coming. 

The ordinary interpretation is that one object of the story was to remove 
an erroneous impression created by John’s longevity. It is obvious that 
this would exclude the identification of the beloved disciple with John the 
son of Zebedee, if the early martyr-death of the latter is accepted as historical. 
If it is not, the figure of the beloved disciple may be (a) identified either 
with that John or with John the presbyter, or else (4) he may be regarded as 
the ideal Christian. When (a) is followed, those who regard ch, 21 as from 
a different hand may still take the beloved disciple of 1-20 as originally 
modelled on the apostle John ; in which case ch. 21 betrays the conscious 
or unconscious confusion of the apostle with the presbyter. But it is even 
possible to interpret 217° in such a way as to permit its reference to Jolin 
the apostle, in the light of his early martyrdom. The starting-point of this 
interpretation is the mysterious saying of Jesus preserved in Mk 9!=Mt 167 
=Lk 957 that some (τινες) of the disciples (not simply of his contemporaries) 
would survive until he returned in messianic glory.* Whether Mt. has 
expanded eschatologically, and Lk. abbreviated, the original Marcan form 
(cp. 1 Co 4%; Resch, /aradlel- Texte, iii. 156 f.), or whether Mt. is closer to 
the original, matters nothing for our present purpose. The Fourth evangelist 
has already generalised and spiritualised the saying (851-52) in characteristic 
fashion ; in 2173 it is at once applied specifically to the beloved disciple and 
also cleared of popular misconceptions. What the writer means is that the 
beloved disciple did not stay where he was, but followed Jesus in his own 
way, 2.6. that John outlived Peter, and, although he too died as a martyr, 
did not die in the same way as his fellow-disciple. Whatever was the 
original context of the saying (cp. Mk.’s καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς), it follows in the 
synoptic tradition Christ’s claim that the true disciple must take up his 
cross and follow the Lord (ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι, 
Mk δ8-- Μι 16%=Lk 9%). This connexion underlies the association of 
Peter’s death on the cross and his following of Jesus in Jn 2138-2, and also 
the suggestion in 217° #8 that, as in the case of the beloved disciple, there 
was a following which did not involve such a death and yet did not, on the 
other hand, imply survival til the return of Jesus. The beloved disciple 
did not suffer martyrdom on the cross, but he did taste of death before the 
Lord returned. The point of 212% therefore lies in the contrast between 
ἀκολουθοῦντα and μένειν. The beloved disciple also fo//ows Jesus ; he too goes 
forward to a martyr-death. Peter's question in v.*2 expresses curiosity about 
the particular form of that death. Is it to be the same as his own, or what? 
The reply in v.” is that whatever be the fate of the other disciple, his own 


* It is improbable (i.) that this saying is to be connected (so, ¢.g., O. 
Holtzmann) with Mk 10%=Mt 20%, as if Jesus expected that some, includ- 
ing James and John, would share his martyrdom at Jerusalem, or (ii.) that 
it is to be read, in the light of Ac 7°°°°8, along with the following transfigura- 
tion-story (Abbott, Dzat. 2998, xxv.a), as if Peter, James, and John in thei 
lifetime er joyed the martyr’s privilege of a vision of the heavenly Son of Man 


576 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


duty and destiny are plain; σύ μοι ἀκολούθει. Of the other disciple, who is 
already following Jesus, it is said, ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρὸς 
σέ; here μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι means survival till the second coming of Jesus, 
but the fact that the words are spoken about one who was already following 
(2.6. in the pregnant and fateful sense of the term, on the way to martyrdom) 
shows that μένειν in this context denotes a Christian life which did not follow, 
a life which stayed where it was (cp. 11°) without moving. ‘Even if I 
choose that he should not follow at all, but remain where he is, it is no 
concern of yours,” The passage thus corrects the idea (21°23=Mk οὗ) that 
John’s early martyrdom was less notable than that of Peter’s or out of accord 
with the will and word of Jesus. I suggest this interpretation with some 
diffidence ; but it seems to me the only way of fitting in the logion (as applied 
to John) to the early martyrdom-hypothesis. 

(iii.) It is obvious, as Zahn admits, that v.24 was not written 
by the author of the gospel. ‘The we includes the J [of v.% 
οἶμαι] and excludes the ἀφ [2.6. the μαθήτης of v.24].” Whether 
the we represents the Ephesian presbyters, or a local church, or 
the apostles (as in the legend of the Muratorian Canon), or a small 
group of apostles (Haussleiter), the whole of ch. 21, and not 
merely the imprimatur of vv.2425, was probably composed by 
the editor who wrote in their name. 214% is a postscript, 
but it is closely connected with what precedes. The narrative 
could never have left off at 2173, though it might have been 
rounded off with 2124, v.25 being subsequently added with a sort 
of rhetorical flourish to signalise the position of the book at the 
close of the guspel-canon. How apt a remark, for all its naive 
hyperbole, to be made by a scribe or editor as the finalé of the 
last scripture in the collection of evangelic narratives! But 
although more hands than one may have touched the gospel 
editorially, v.25 in all likelihood came from the same pen as the 
preceding passage. The external evidence against the verse is of 
the slenderest; Dr. Gwynn, after an examination of the textual 
phenomena (/ermathena, viii. pp. 368-384), even pronounces 
it non-existent. Whether or not its “real service to the scholar 
is to illustrate the morbid disposition of editors and scribes 
towards a species of appendicitis,” it seems to have formed 
part of the canonical text as early as that text can be verified. 
The atmosphere of 2174 is local patriotism and reverence felt 
by the Asia Minor communities for the memory of their dis- 
tinguished head.* (V.% “seems an inflated version of 20%,” 

* If this was John the apostle, he must have been martyred in Asia Minor, 


or after work there. This theory in any case renders the confusion between 
him and his namesake in Asia more probable. If the beloved disciple was John 


LATER TRACES 877 


Dods, EGT. i. p. 867. The same idea is more moderately 
put in 1 Mac 922.) An instance of this habit of adding notes 
to a volume is afforded by Ec 13% (5514. although the spirit of 
that epilogue is corrective rather than confirmatory. Thoma, 
who attributes 2175 to the author of the gospel (#¢. the 
presbyter of 2 and 3 John), gives 2174 35 to the author of 1 John 
as being a later insertion; while Chastand attributes ch. 21, 
like 753-811 11-5. 18-18 to a pupil of John who wrote after his 
death. But when the whole chapter is taken as a unity, it falls 
into the age and spirit (Klopper) of vv. 25, and as the gospel 
could not have ended with 2128, there is no reason to take 
vy.24 25 as notes added before publication (O. Holtzmann). 

§ 11. Zraces in second-century literature.—The earliest traces * 
of the Fourth gospel occur in (a) Papias, (4) Ignatius, (τ) the 
Marcan appendix (16°), and (4) Justin Martyr; the alleged 
traces in Polykarp, Barnabas, and Hermas are quite indecisive. 

(a) Where Papias criticises, or rather reports the criticism of 
John the presbyter upon, Mk. for not writing his account of 
Jesus τάξει, he is tacitly contrasting the synoptic manner (see 
above, pp. 187f.) with that of the Fourth gospel (so, eg., Zahn, 
Schwartz, Corssen in ZVIV., 1901, 212f.). This is borne out 
by the fact that Irenzeus quotes a fantastic exegesis of Jn 14? from 
the presbyters, evidently the presbyters of Papias; this logion 
might have been current apart from the Fourth gospel (as has 
been recently argued by Kreyenbiuhl, i. 64 f.), but the probability 
is that the presbyters knew it in its present context and 
embroidered it with passages like Slav. En 61? etc. 

(4) The conceptions of Ignatius have been held to imply 
rather an acquaintance with the general ideas which reappear in 
special guise in the Fourth gospel and the First epistle of John, 
than any literary relationship. 


the presbyter, the same motive operates, viz. the desire of the Asiatic Chris- 
tians to uphold their chief against the Roman claims of Peter ; but, again, this 
tendency is more explicable if the confusion between the two Johns was already 
accomplished, unless the present chapter is a deliberate attempt to promote it. 

* On the general external evidence for the circulation and reception of the 
Fourth gospel in the churches of the second century, see Ezra Abbot’s 
essay in the volume (1891) by A. Peabody, Lightfoot, and himself; E. A. 
Abbott (1.82. 1813 f.); Lepin, Z’Origéne, pp. 19f.; Sanday, Criticism of 
Fourth Gospel, 236f.; Zahn (V7. § 64); H. L. Jackson (Fourth Gospel, 
38-61); Stanton (GHD, i. part 1), and Bacon’s Fourth Gospel in Research 
and Debate (1910) 17 f. 


37 


578 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


This conclusion, argued especially by von der Goltz in ‘Ignatius von 
Antiochien als Christ u. Theologe’ (7U. xii. 3, pp. 118-144, 197-206), is 
shared by Abbott (Zz. 1829-1830), J. Réville, Harnack (4 2. ii. 1, pp. 
396f., 674), Schmiedel (Zz. 2547), and Bacon (Fourth Gospel in Research 
and Debate, 64). The dependence of Ignatius is argued, not only by Dietze 
(SA., 1905, 563-603),* but by Lightfoot (Bzd/cal Essays, pp. 81f.), Zahn 
(GX. ii. 903 f.), Resch (pp. 11-12), Drummond, Loisy, and Sanday. The 
evidence for the latter view is ‘‘ somewhat indeterminate ” to Stanton (GAD. 
i. 19f.), and highly probable, though short of certainty, to Inge (ΜΝ 7. 
81-83). In the Johannine circle of thought, and in the Ignatian epistles 
alike, the great contrasts of /sfe and death, God and the ruler of this world, 
appear, together with a predilection for the same conceptions of γνῶσις and 
πίστις, ἀλήθεια and ἀγάπη. But it is the christocentric tendency, so strongly 
marked in Ephesians, which reappears characteristically in the Fourth 
gospel and the Ignatian epistles, where the entire value of Christianity is 
identified with the person of Christ, and where the communication of the 
divine knowledge and redemption to mankind depends essentially upon the 
historical reality of Jesus (cp. Jn 65°), who really lived, really died, and really 
rose again (Smyrn. 31 etc., Zra/l. 9). The complete manhood of Jesus, from 
birth (1 643 7°7 8°) to death (Swzyr. 9), is the historic guarantee of God’s 
manifestation to men, and to deny this denotes the spirit of antichrist or 
blasphemy (Smyrn. 57). Apart from the σάρξ of Christ (7,ra//. 71), faith is 
vain. On the other hand, so far from impairing the divine uniqueness of 
Christ, this essential humanity only serves to bring out his deity, and 
Ignatius, while distinguishing him from the Father (¢.g. A/agn. 6% 83), goes 
so far as to call him θεός, and to speak of αἷμα θεοῦ (Zph. 1°). 

As in Hebrews so in Ignatius and the Fourth gospel, the absolute and 
unique character of the Christian revelation does not exclude, but rather 
implies, that among the Hebrews this culminating epoch had been practically 
anticipated. The prophets of old (cp. Magn. 8'-?) had been inspired by grace 
to speak and suffer; their life had been κατὰ Χριστόν, and consequently they 
had still a significance and authority for Christians (Swyrn. 7, cp. Jn 539 12%). 
Even the Mosaic law, properly regarded, was a step towards faith in Christ 
(Jn 5“ 7” etc., cp. Smyrn. 5').f But the latter, as final, supersedes all 
previous revelations. 

In Ignatius, however (cp. Ro 87, A/agn. 87), as opposed to the Fourth 
gospel, the Logos is associated, by a play on its etymological significance, 
with the self-utterance of God, connected with στόμα and γνώμη, and con- 
trasted with the silence of the divine nature. Furthermore, the emphasis on 


* The fact that Ignatius develops the Logos-idea on naive religious lines, 
and not on the semi-philosophic line of the Fourth gospel, must not be taken 
(as by Dietze, p. 587) as determining the character of the latter. The affinities 
of the Logos-idea in the Fourth gospel, with their undoubted echoes of 
Philonic speculation, simply show that the idea, as we see from Hebrews and 
John’s apocalypse, was capable of varied application in the hands of varied 
writers. 

+ Jo 45: and Ign. A/agn. τοῦ both regard Judaism as the prelude to the 
universal and spiritual religion of the Christ. 


LATER TRACES $79 


the birth and death of Christ (#4. 191) as the cardinal moments of his saving 
work suggests a development of the Pauline ideas in popular combination with 
the later synoptic tradition, rather than a reflection of the Johannine thought. 
Ignatius also reflects the Pauline conception in the emphasis which he attaches 
to the death of Christ as summing up the significance of his παρουσία (Zph. 
77, Smyrn. 5°, Phil. 8? 97). In collocating the virgin-birth with this, he 
assimilates Paul’s thought to the later synoptic tradition of Mt 1-2 and Lk 
I-3. But, as in Paul the death of Jesus set free the redeeming powers of the 
risen life, so in Ignatius the death of Christ stands in relation to the semi- 
physical conception of ἕωή as equivalent to ἀφθαρσία, the latter state of 
immortality being conditioned by that triumph over sin* and death which 
Jesus achieved by his sinless birth and redemptive death. 

The thought and even the language of Smyrn. 17 are almost as Pauline as 
Johannine (1239. 3. The passage follows a sentence where Ignatius echoes 
Ro 1‘ and the synoptic tradition of the virgin-birth and baptism (Mt 315). 
He then proceeds to describe Christ as truly nailed up (καθηλωμένον) for our 
sakes tn the flesh ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου (1 Ti 61%) καὶ ᾿Ηρώδου τετράρχου. . . 
that he might set up an ensign (Is 5*° 497") to all ages through the resurrec- 
tion, for his saints and faithful ones (cp. Eph 11), whether among Jesus or 
among Gentiles, in one body of his church. The underlying thought is no 
more than a popular adaptation of that in Eph 1% 214, where the death 
ἐν σαρκί and resurrection of Jesus are the divine means of uniting Jew and 
Gentile zz one body. The influence of Paulinism, however, does not explain 
satisfactorily the resemblance between Ignatius and the Fourth gospel. As 
Ignatius uses, but inexactly cites, the epistles of Paul without any formal 
citation or reproduction of their contents in any given passage (cp. ¢.g. 1 Co 
1212 with 7 γα. 11, Smyrn. 1), why may not he have dealt with the text of the 
Fourth gospel similarly? May not the sovereign freedom of a writer who 
uses earlier writings to help out his characteristic ideas, neglecting the form 
but conserving so much of the spirit as he found congenial, be held to 
explain the one problem as well as the other? 


(ὃ As Mk 16°-*° (pp. 239 f.) presupposes the Fourth gospel 
(cp. 4.5. Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 244, and Bacon, 
fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, 213 f.), this dates the latter, 
or, at any rate, 1-20 (Bacon), prior to the middle of the second 
century. 

(d) Justin Martyr: cp. Schwegler (ΔΖ. i. 216f., 359f.), 
Hilgenfeld (ZWT7., 1879, 492f., J.’s relation to Paul and 
Fourth gospel), Bousset, Die Eugliencttate Justins der Martyrers 
(1890), and Zahn, GX. i. 463 f. 

The only question with regard to Justin is whether he 
attributed the gospel to John the apostle, as he did the 
apocalypse. The gospel was certainly in circulation when he 
wrote, and therefore it is probable that echoes are to be heard 

* A point at which the affinities of Ignatius with 1 John are noticeable. 


580 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


in places like Afgol. i. 61 (= Jn 335) and Dial. 88 (=Jn τὴ 9 
though Ac 13” is as probable a source), though not in Afol. 184 
(=Jn 19), ἐκάθισεν misunderstood as in Gospel of Peter).* 


The independent character of Justin’s Logos-doctrine, and the scantiness 
of any definite allusions in his writings to the Fourth gospel, render it highly 
probable that, like Ignatius, he did not assign it any authoritative position as 
an apostolic or Johannine work, —it is doubtful if he even ranked it among the 
ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν dmocré\wy,—but the evidence, such as it is, indicates 
that it was known to him. This conclusion, which is practically that arrived 
at by Keim, Thoma, Hilgenfeld, Harnack, J. Réville, Kreyenbiihl, Loisy, 
and Bousset, does not go so far as that of scholars like Ezra Abbot (Authorship 
of Fourth Gospel, 20f.), Resch (Paradlleliexte 2u Joh. 17 f.), and Drummond 
(pp. 86-162), who think that Justin believed in the Johannine authorship, 
but it is an advance upon the older attitude of scepticism which could not 
find any secure trace of the Fourth gospel in Justin at all, and much more 
upon the view of those who argued that Justin represented a stage of Logos- 
speculation prior to the Fourth gospel. 


The inferences from such uses of the Fourth gospel are incon- 
clusive, and even unfavourable (see below), so far as the 
Johannine authorship is concerned, but they converge upon a 
proof that it was in circulation from the second decade onwards 
of the second century in Asia Minor at least; the Johannine 
teaching and the Johannine epistles (with the apocalypse), whose 
existence is verified for that period, are not sufficient to account 
by themselves for the phenomena of the so-called “‘ echoes ” of the 
Fourth gospel, e.g. in Papias, Ignatius, and Justin. They do not 
suggest that the gospel was reckoned as the work of John the 
apostle, but they are sufficient to prove its diffusion as early as 
the first quarter of the second century. 

§ 11. Zhe date.—The various dates to which the gospel has 
been assigned cover a period of about one hundred years. It 
has been placed between 70 and ὃς (Wittichen, Alford, 
Reithmayr, Bleek), between 80 and go (Ewald, Godet, Bisping, 
Westcott, Calmes, Zahn), between go and roo (Mangenot, 
Batiffol, B. Weiss, Camerlynck = 85-95), ¢ A.D. 100 (Lightfoot, 
Weizsicker, Reynolds, Harnack=after 95, Cornely, Lepin= 
before 100), between 100 and 110 (Renan, Schenkel), in 1oo- 
125 (O. Holtzmann, J. Réville, Julicher, Loisy), in 130-140 
(Hilgenfeld, Keim, Thoma, Liitzelberger, A. Réville), in 140-155 

*Both the Gospel of /eter and Justin apparently go back to the Acta 


Pilati at this point. It is superfluous to assume a misreading of the Fourth 
gospel (cp. DCG. i. 678, i. 758). 


DATE 581 


(Bretschneider=c. 150, Schwegler, Zeller, Volkmar, Taylor, 
Pfleiderer, van Manen, Kreyenbuhl, Schiniedel, Schwartz=c. 
150), and in 160-170 (Baur, Scholten, Bruno Bauer). Recent 
criticism, however, has lopped off several branches on both 
sides. It is now recognised generally that the use of the gospel 
in the circles of Valentinian gnosis* rules out any date after 
¢. 130; again, if Justin, Ignatius, and Papias in all likelihood 
were acquainted with it, this excludes any ¢erminus ad quem 
for its composition much later than a.p. 110. The ¢erminus 
a quo, on the other hand, is determined approximately by the 
date of the synoptic gospels, all of which, as we have already 
seen, were probably known to the writer. 


(a) One question has indeed been raised which would leave a later date 
open. Does 5% (ἐὰν ἄλλος ἔλθῃ ἐν τῴ ὀνόματι τῷ ἰδίῳ, ἐκεῖνον λήμψεσθε) 
allude to the movement headed by Bar Kochba, the pseudo-messiah, under 
Hadrian? This interpretation, which has been urged especially by Hilgenfeld 
(Zinl. 738f.), Erbes, Pfleiderer, and Schmiedel (#42. 2551), would prevent 
the composition of the gospel from being earlier than A.D. 135, unless with 
Wellhausen we regard the saying as an interpolation (see above, p. 37)—much 
as the allusion in the Po/z/zcs (v. 10. 16) to Philip’s murder proves that Aristotle 
wrote this passage or the entire treatise after 336 B.c. The reference is 
not to any historical personality, however, but to the belief (cp. 2 Th 2) 
that antichrist would arise out of Judaism (so, ¢.g., Bousset and Loisy). 
(4) Upon the opposite side, the dependence of the gospel upon the synoptic 
writers has been challenged in favour of a much earlier date. Repeated 
attempts have been made, mainly on the ground of 5? (ἔστιν xri., on 
which Bengel comments, serips¢et Johannes ante uastationem urbis), to put 
John prior to A.D. 70 (ς. 70, Resch, Michaelis), and, indeed, to the synoptic 
gospels, which are supposed to correct and amplify its traditions. See 
especially the recent essays (after Lampe, Hahneberg, J. T. Beck, and Cassel) 
of Wiittig, Das Joh. Euglm und seine Abfassungszett, 1897 (reviewed by H. 
A. A. Kennedy, Crit. Rev., 1897, 254-356; Blass, Phzlol. Gospels, 241 f., and 
Holtzmann, 7'ZZ., 1897, 379f.) ; W. Kiippers, meue Untersuchungen tiber den 
Quellenwert der vier Evglien, 1902; Wilms, der Ursprung des Joh. Evglms, 
1904, and H. Gebhardt, die Abfassungszett des Johannes Evglis, 1906, with 
Halcombe’s independent theory in The Historic Relation of the Gospels, An 


* If the Zxegetica of Basilides based on the Fourth gospel, this would 
more than corroborate a date earlier than Hadrian; but possibly (cp. 
Windisch in ZVW., 1906, 236-246) Basilides commented on an edition of 
Luke (see above, p. 187). The anti-gnostic aim is carried to unreal extremes 
by Schwartz, who regards some of the editorial additions as anti-Valentinian ; 
e.g. 8 (2%, see above, p. 536) in order to controvert their thirty (cp. 
Lk 3%) exons, and the festal journeys in order to upset their one-year 
ministry of Jesus, with the omission of Simon the Cyrenian on account of the 
gnostic, doketic abuse of this figure in the passion-story. 


582 A JOHANNINE TRACT (I JOHN) 


Essay toward re-establishing Tertulian’s account (1891), and in £7. iv. pp. 
77f., 215 f., 268f., 313 f., 4o4f., v. 224f. The hypothesis takes various forms, 
Thus W. Kiippers puts Mk. last (64 f.) and Lk. (pp. 52-57) immediately after 
John; while Halcombe puts Lk. last and Mk. second. But it is almost 
superfluous to add that, in any form, the theory will not bear examination. 
The use of the present tense (along with the past, cp. 4° 118 181) is no 
evidence for the contemporary existence of a building or institution, as 
Hebrews and Josephus are sufficient to prove; the absence of any allusion in 
the Fourth gospel? to the fall of Jerusalem is no serious plea against its 
composition after A.D. 70; the external evidence of tradition (cp. Wright in 
ET. iv. 358f.) upon the order of the gospels is neither unanimous nor of 
primary importance (see above, pp. 14-16); and, finally, the order of the 
synoptic go-pels, neces-itated by this theory, is absolutely impossible (cp. 
Wright in £7. iv. 497-501, v. 126f., 168 f.). 


(B) A JOHANNINE TRACT (1 JOHN)S 


LITERATURE. —(a) Editions—(i.) (of three ‘ Johannine’ epistles) :—Grotius 
(1550); Calvin (1565); Aeg. Hunnius (1566) ; Calovius (1650); W. Whiston 
(1719); Zachariae (1776); S. F. N. Morus (1786); 5. G. Lange (1797); 
H. E. G. Paulus (1829); de Wette (1837 f.); Jachmann (1838); Lticke 3 
(1840; third ed., Bertheau, 1856)*; J. E. F. Sanders (Elberfeld, 1851) ; 
G. K. Mayer (1851); Diisterdieck (Géttingen, 1856); C. Wordsworth 
(London, 1860); Ewald, Dre Joh. Briefe tibersetzt und erklart (Gottingen, 
1861-2); Morgan (Edin. 1865); B. Briickner (— de Wette®, 1867) ; 
F. Ὁ. Maurice (1867); Bisping (1874); Reuss (1878); Huther (— Meyer, 
1880 ; Eng. tr. 1882); Alexander (Speaker's Comm. 1881)* ; Pope (Schaff's 
Comm. 1883); Braune (— Lange’, 1885; Eng. tr. 1887); C. A. Wolf? 
(1885); Plummer (CG7. 1886); B. F. Westcott® (1892)*; Luthardt? 
(— Zockler, 1895); B. Weiss (— Meyer®, 1900)*; W. H. Bennett (C2. 
n. d.); J. E. Belser (1906); Baumgarten (SA’7.? 1907); H. P. Forbes 
(Intern. HHdbks to NT, iv. 1907); Holtzmaun-Bauer* (HC.* 1908); 
D. Smith (EG7. 1910); A. Ramsay (Westminster N7, 1910). (ii.) (of 
‘1 John’ alone) :—John Cotton (4 Practical Commentary, London, 1655) ; 
C, Rickli (1828) ; Neander (1851; Eng. tr., Conant, New York, 1853); 
E. Haupt (1869, Eng. tr. 1879) ; Rothe (1878, Eng. tr. in #7, iii.-v.)* ; 
Lias (1887) ; C. Watson (1891, second ed. 1909). 

(4) Studies—(i.) of 1 Jn.:—Oporinus, Parenesis Joannis ad prémos 
Christianos, etc. (Gottingen, 1741); J. C. F. Loffler (Zpzstola prima Joh. 


1 Written in Ephesus (Gebhardt) or in Jerusalem (Wiittig, Wilms, 
Kiippers, Halcombe). Driseke (VAZ., 1898, 139-155: ‘das Joh-Evglm 
bei Celsus’), who agreed with Delff that the author was the priestly John of 
Jerusalem, and that Celsus knew the Fourth gospel minus 6 ™, agreed 
with Wiittig in dating the original prior to A.D. 70. 

2 The so-called ‘epistles of John,’ especially the first, are discussed in 
most monographs on the Fourth gospel (see above, pp. 516f.) and often 
edited in the special commentaries on the ‘ Catholic epistles’ (see p. 318). 


STRUCTURE AND OUTLINE 583 


gmosticos impucnare negatur, 1784); C. F. Wunder (Utrum prima epistola 
foh. cetua e Iudets et judeo-Christiants mixto scripta est, 1799); C.C. Flatt 
(De Antichristis et pseudo-prophetis in epist. Joh., Tiibingen, 1809); M. 
Weber (Authentia epist. prime TLoannis vindicata, Halle, 1823); F. H. 
Kern (De efistole Joh. consilio, Tiibingen, 1830); Schlagenhaufen’s, Evude 
sur la Ie Jean (1854); Ὁ. Erdmann (Prime Johannis epistole argumentum, 
nexus et constlium, Berlin, 1855); C. E. Luthardt (De prime Joannis 
epistole composttione, 1860); Stricker’s Introd. analytigue (Strassburg, 
1862); Joh. Riemms (De Beteekenis van den ersten Brief van Joh. in het 
historisch-kritisch Onderzock naar den Oorsprung van het Vierde Evangelie, 
Utrecht, 1869: epistle and gospel by apostle) ; J. Stockmeyer (Dze Structur 
des ersten Joh. Briefes, Basle, 1373); Holtzmann* in 7} 7, (1881) 690 f., 
(1882) 128 f., 136f., 460 f.; E. Mangenot (Vigoroux’ DB. ii. 1191-1291) ; 
Karl, Johann. Studien I (1898)* ; Wohlenberg (VA‘Z., 1902, 233 f., 632 f., 
‘Glossen zum ersten Johannisbrief’) ; M. Goguel, Za notion Johannique ce 
PEsprit, 1902 (pp. 147-153, ‘sur la théologie de la premiére épitre’) ; Wurm, 
Die Lrrlehrer im ersten Johannisbrief (1904, in ‘ Biblische Studien,’ viii.) ; 
G. G. Findlay (Fellowship tn the Life Etrnal, 1909, 59 f.)*; R. Law, 
The Tests of Life® (1909). (ii.) of all three :—Holtzmann (BZ. iii. 342- 
352); Sabatier (ZSA. vii. 177 f.); Henle, Der Euglist Joh. und die Anti- 
christen seiner seit (1884); Farrar, Early Days of Christianity (ch. 
xxxi. f.); Cox, Private Letters of St. Paul and St. John (1887) ; Gloag, 
Introd. to Cath. Epp. (1887), 264-350; Cone, The Gospel and tts earliest 
Interpret. (1893) 320-327 ; 5. D. F. Salmond (DB. ii. 728-742); McGiffert 
(AA. 617f.); Bartlet (44. 418 f.); Pfleiderer (Uz. ii. 390f., 441 f.); 
Moffatt (HVT. 534 f.); G. H. Gilbert, Zhe /irst /nterpreters of Jesus 
(1901, 301-332); Clemen (ZNVW., 1905, 271-281); von Soden (/.\ 7. 
374 f.); Schmiedel (442. 2556-2562 and ναι, Briefe u. Ojfenbarung des 
Johannes, 1906, Eng. tr. 1905); A. V. Green, Hphesian Canonical Writings 
(1910, 128-163). 


§ 1. Structure and outline.—Special literature: Erdmann (of. 
ait. pp. 6-45), Haupt (οὐ. ct. 348f.), Wiesinger (SX, 1899, 
575), Haring (774A. 171-200), Westcott and Hort (Zxf.7 ini. 
481-493). 

This encyclica or pastoral manifesto was written neither at 
the request of its readers nor in reply to any communication on 
their part. ~What moved the author (14) to compose it wae 
anxiety about the effects produced on the church by certair 
contemporary phases of semi-gnostic teaching. The early 
connection of the document with the Fourth gospel suggests 
that the church may have been that of Asia Minor, in the first 
instance, but the absence of any local or individual traits renders 
even that a matter of inference. In any case, the author plainly 
meant his words to have a wider range. His trait or manifcsto, 
which is thrown into a vague epistolary form (1* 21: 7-8 12:14. 36 


584 A JOHANNINE TRACT (I JOHN) 


5'8), is a ‘catholic’ homily,* in the original sense of the term, 
* Substitute the word ‘say’ for ‘write’... and one might 
imagine the whole discourse delivered in speech to the 
assembled church” (Findlay, 59). ‘Non uidetur peregre 
misisse, sed coram impertiisse auditoribus” (Bengel). 

The plan of it is unstudied and unpremeditated ; it resembles 
a series of meditations or variations on one or two simple themes 
rather than a carefully constructed melody ; and little success has 
attended the attempts to analyse it into a double (God ts Light, 
God is Love: Plummer ; 15-227 298-55; Findlay), triple (11-2! 
212_46 47-521; Ewald; God is Light, God is Righteous, God is 
Love: Farrar),t fourfold (15-21! 212-28 229-322 323517; Huther), 
or fivefold (15-211 212-27 228_ 3240 324b_ 421 51-21: Hofmann) arrange- 
ment.§ After defining the Christian κοινωνία which forms his 
subject (115), the author proceeds to outline its conditions (15- 
217) under the category of an antithesis between light and dark- 
ness. The first of these is a due sense of sin (cp. Karl, of. cit. 
97f.), leading to a sense of forgiveness through Jesus Christ. 
The second is obedience to the supreme law of brotherly love 
(cp. Ignat. Smyrz. 6). Unless these conditions are fulfilled, a 
fatal darkness falls upon the soul. Hence the writer passes to 
the dangers of κοινωνία (218°), under the further category of an 
antithesis between truth and falsehood; the pressing peril is a 
recent heretical view of Christ’s person which threatens the 
existence of any κοινωνία with God or man. He then develops 
the characteristics of the κοινωνία (3112) as sinlessness and 
brotherly love, under the category of an antithesis between 
God’s children (cp. 2% dorm of him) and the devil’s children. 
This mutual love bulks so largely in his mind that he enlarges 
on three of its elements, viz., confidence towards God (18:39) 
moral discernment (41:8), and assurance of union with the God 
of love (41:31), all these being bound up with a true faith in Jesus 


* This was seen long ago by Heidegger and Bengel, amongst others, and 
is now generally accepted. 

+ Disterdieck and Alford (God is Light, 1°-2%; God is Righteous, 2*-5°), 

t De Wette (15-2% 24° 47-5), Hort (11--21}7 218-374 4!-53!), Erdmann 
(15-24 218318 319512), Haupt (1°-2)7 218-5® 5°12), I. H. Kriiger in Xevne 
Chrétienne, 1895, 27f., 100f. (15-217 218-48 47-5"), Pfleiderer (15-2 31° 4)- 
512), etc. Bengel and Sander divide it artificially on a trinitarian plan, 

§ ‘‘ Like the doublings of the Maeander near which he lived, the progress 
of the apostle at times looks more like retrogression than advance; but the 
progress is unmistakable, when the whole field is surveyed” (Plummer). 


STRUCTURE AND OUTLINE 585 


Christ (51:3). A brief epilogue, which is for tne most part (cp. 
Klopper, ZWT., 1900, 585f.) a resumé of the ideas already 
discussed, closes the homily (51%-1), with a reiteration of eternal 
life as experienced by the Christian within ‘the wide wold and 
all her fading sweets.’ The postscript (after 51%=Jn 2081) 
specially, however, notes the danger of lapsing and the treat- 
ment of the /afsi (cp. He 6*). 


A closer examination of the context often reveals a subtle connection, as 
in the case of James (though for different reasons), between paragraphs or even 
cycles of thought which at first sight appear unlinked. Thus the thought of 
the world passing away (in 217) suggests the following sentences (215) upon 
the nearness of the Parousia ; the signs of the latter are carefully noted, in 
order to reassure and warn believers, and its moral demands are emphasised 
(2-3). Inside this paragraph,* even the apparently abrupt mention of the 
χρίσμα has its place (2”), The heretical ἀντιχρίστοι, it is implied, have no 
χρίσμα from God; Christians have (note the emphasis on ὑμεῖς), owing to 
their union with the true Xploros. Again, the genelic relation of 34 to what 
precedes becomes evident in the light of the fact that the norm of Christian 
purity (3°) is the keeping of the divine commandments, or conduct like 
Christ’s on earth (3°=2**), so that the gnostic breach of this law not only 
puts a man out of all touch with Christ (35), but defeats the very end of 
Christ’s work #.¢. the abolition of sin and its effects (3°). 37:19 thus resumes 
and expands the thought of 2”, the gnostic being shown to be out of touch 
with the righteous God, partly because he will not share the brotherly love 
which is the expression of that righteousness, and partly because his claims to 
sinlessness render God’s righteous (1°) forgiveness superfluous. Similarly, the 
mention of the Spirit in 3% opens out naturally into a discussion of the decisive 
test to be applied to the false claims of the heretics to spiritual powers and 
gifts (415); and, as this test of the genuine Spirit is the confession of Jesus 
Christ as really human and incarnate, the writer, on returning (in 47) to his 
cardinal idea of brotherly love, expresses it in the light of the incarnate Son 
(4°), whose mission furnishes at once the proof of God’s love and the example 
as well as the energy of ours (4). The same idea of Christ’s real humanity 
as essential to faith’s being and well-being is worked out in the succeeding 
section (51:12), while the mention of eternal life (5!) leads to a recapitulation 
(5191) of the main ideas of the epistle under this special category. 

578 reads like a later gloss (so Scholten, Baljon, pp. 249f.); but there is 
not the textual evidence for its deletion that is available for the adjacent 
Comma Johanneum of the three witnesses. An attempt has been made by 
K. Kiinstle (Das Comma Johanneum, 1905) to locate the origin of this 


* For an attempt to prove, on the basis of 253-312, that paraphrastic 
marginal glosses have entered the writing and so produced the repeated 
phenomena of abrupt transition, cp. von Dobschiitz (ZVW., 1907, 1-8). 
Cludius (Uransichten des Christen‘ums, Altona, 1808) had already con- 
jectured that a gnostic editor must have worked over the Jewish Christian 
nucleus of the document—a creeping estimate of the tract, 


586 A JOHANNINE TRACT (I JOHN) 


notorious interpolation in Spain during the first half of the fourth century, 
and to find the earliest trace of it in Priscillian’s Leber Apologeticus (A.D. 380), 
where it occurs in an expanded, heretical form (with z# Chrésto Jesu): 
Kiinstle’s theory, however, has not won unanimous assent ;* cp. Jiilicher’s 
review in GGA., 1905, 930-935; Mangenot (Le Comma Johanneum, 1907); 
and Babut (Présczllien et le Priscillianisme, 1909, pp. 267f.). The 
probability is that the Comma was prior to Priscillian, wherever it may 
have originated. 

§ 2. Olject.—The polemic is directed against some con- 
temporary phases of a dualistic gnosticism, which developed 
theoretically into docetic views of Christ’s person (2? 4? etc.) 
and practically into libertinism (2* etc.). The former aspect 
marked the idealism or ultra-spiritualism of teachers like 
Cerinthus, who held that the divine Spirit or heavenly con 
(= Christ) only entered Jesus at his baptism and left him before 
his passion and death, a theory which amounted to a denial of 
the identity of Jesus and Christ the Son of God. Hence the 
emphasis in 52°, as opposed to the gnostic idea that the real God 
was too spiritual to touch human flesh or become incarnate. 
Hence, too, the stress laid on the blood. The denial of the 
virgin-birth, which also formed part of the system of Cerinthus, 
had been met by anticipation in the stories of Mt. and Lk., which 
pushed back the reception of the Spirit from the baptism to the 
birth; the Johannine school, on the other hand, preferred to 
answer this heresy by developing the theory of the Logos, with 
its implicate of pre-existence. Ignatius combines both. 

On its practical side, this docetic christology produced a set 
of gnostic i//uminati, whose watchword was J know him (24, cp. 
Tit 116, Apoc 274), The superior theosophic insight to which they 
laid claim led naturally to a sense of pride in themselves as the 
élite of Christendom, which fostered an unbrotherly contempt 
for the unenlightened members of the church. The writer retorts 
that this is not a true enlightenment (29). He is equally un 
sparing upon the other feature of this docetic teaching, viz., 
its tendency to the antinomianism which besets all perfectionist 
claims (note the catchwords, we have no sin, we have not sinned, 
cited in 181), An indifference to the flesh and to material vices 
was the outcome of an overstrained spiritualism. To this lowered 
ethical demand (45) the writer bluntly attributes the popularity 
of these errorists, while their perfectionist views rendered the 
atoning death of Jesus superfluous. In fact, this erroneous view 

* On the general question, see Gregory’s article in 4/7: xi. 131-138. 


POLEMICAL AIMS 587 


of the death of Jesus involves, according to the homily, three 
cardinal flaws: (a) an inadequate conception of Jesus as the 
Christ, (4) an antinomian attitude towards sin, and (ὦ an 
inability to love one another (27-11 310-18. 28 47_58) truly, since 
genuine brotherly love among Christians must be the outcome of 
God’s redeeming love as manifested in the person and work of 
Jesus Christ. 

The author’s method of polemic is to present a positive view 
of (a) the historic character and continuity of revelation in the 
church (11:8 213-14. 24 35-8 414 56. 11. 20) 4 view which, so far from 
being an innovation (like gnostic ideas), is a recall to the basis of 
the Christian gospel already familiar (27 18) to the readers. In 
the historical Jesus, the Christ of God, the churches possess a 
revelation of God and life which is absolute, and at all costs this 
must be adhered to (cp. Denney, Ze Death of Christ, 1902, 269— 
281, Jesus and the Gospel, 1908, 83f.). (ὁ) The second line of 
defence is the adequacy and finality of the Christian experience, 
which rests upon this correct historical estimate of Jesus as the 
Christ. Such is the true γνῶσις (2? 27 4?), an assurance of the truth 
which is mediated by a strict ethical obedience to Christianity as 
the law of God (32723 52 23-4), 2.6. above all by the exercise of 
a brotherly love, which is more than theoretical, to the members 
of the Christian community. 


The evident care and caution displayed by the writer in rejecting these 
semi-gnostic views is thrown into relief by the fact that he and his fellow- 
Christians were themselves breathing and enjoying an atmosphere of such 
mystical conceptions. Christianity involves the historical Jesus, but none the 
less is it a γνῶσις (27% 27 38! 47 etc.). The gnostics held that a spiritual seed 
was implanted in man, as the germ of his higher development into the divine 
life (Iren. adv. haer. i. 6. 4, on the Valentinian idea that οὐ πρᾶξις eis 
πλήρωμα εἰσάγει, ἀλλὰ τὸ σπέρμα τὸ ἐκεῖθεν νήπιον ἐκπεμπόμενον, ἐνθάδε δὲ 
τελειούμενον, and Tert. de anima, 11, [heretici] nescio quod spiritale semen 
infulciunt anime). The writer takes over this idea for his own purposes. But 
also, ¢.g., in 3! (note the emphatic ἡμῖν) especially, a side-reference to Jewish 
rivalry lies embedded. Contemporary Jews made exactly the same claim on 
their own behalf (cp. R. Akiba’s saying in Aboth iii. 22, 0°32 xip3w Sew 132 
mpp> 02 wipsw oad ΠΡ ain aan mpd). There is further an implicit con- 
trast here to the Philonic idea that ‘‘ even if as yet we are not fit to be reckoned 
θεοῦ παῖδες, still we may be παῖδες of his image (ἀειδοῦς εἰκόνος), the most 
sacred Logos; θεοῦ yap εἰκὼν λόγος ὁ πρεσβύτατος" (de confus. ling. 28). 
Another phrase in the homily (5! καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται) is 
illustrated by the tradition in Baba bathra, 16a, where Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, 
who took exception to Job 9°" (¢he earth ἐς given into the hand of the wicked) 
as blasphemy, s corrected by Joshua ben Chananja. The latter rabbi points 


588 A JOHANNINE TRACT (I JOHN) 


out that Job had Satan in view when he uttered these words. For instances 
of the Palestinian idioms underlying the Greek of the homily, cp. Schlatter 
in BFT. vi. 4. 144-151. The errorists, however, are not to be regarded as 
simply Judaistic (so recently Wurm and Belser, partly Clemen). The author’s 
definition of sin as dvoula springs from his conception of Christianity as the 
divine νόμος, and the traces of a docetic movement (which is never connected 
with Judaism) are too plain to be explained away (cp. Hoennicke, JC. 137 f.); 
they require the incipient phases of a movement like that headed by Cerinthus, 
not simply a Jewish Christian retrogression. Behind the language we hear 
vibrations of the gnostic tendencies which set up a dual personality in the 
historical human Jesus and the divine Christ, the latter descending upon Jesus 
only at the baptism and withdrawing from him ere the crucifixion. It is 
plain that some elements of this docetism, such as Cerinthus represented,* were 
present in the situation presupposed by this homily, whereas the errorists con- 
troverted, ¢.g., in Apoc 2-3, show no definitely christological traits. We can 
also catch echoes of such gnostic speculations as that the divine Being must 
include σκοτία as well as φῶς (15), that participation in cults and mysteries is 
essential to moral purification (17), that only the initiated and 7//uminati can 
be redeemed (22), and that the rank and file of believers possessed πίστις but 
not γνῶσις (27-21), Traces of specifically antinomian gnosticism are obvious 
in the errorists who lay claim to the ‘knowledge of God’ (2) apart from a 
good moral life (cp. Clem. Recogn. ii. 22, qui deum se nosse profitentur ; 
Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 4. 31, τοῖς ἀδίκοις καὶ ἀκρατέσι καὶ πλεονέκταις καὶ 
μοιχοῖς τὰ αὐτὰ πράσσοντες θεὸν ἐγνωκέναι μόνοι λέγουσιν). The later Valen- 
tinians, according to Irenzeus (adv. Haer. i. 6. 2), held that while ἀγαθὴ πρᾶξις 
was an essential of salvation for the catholic ψύχικοι, they themselves μὴ διὰ 
πράξεως, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ φύσει πνευματικοὺς εἶναι πάντῃ τε Kal πάντως σωθήσεσθαι. 

The sort of docetic fantasy that was beginning to play round the evangelic 
tradition may be illustrated from the Leucian Acts of John, where Jesus 
appears to John on the Mount of Olives during the crucifixion, saying, ‘* John, 
to the multitude down there in Jerusalem I am being crucified, and pierced 
with lances and reeds, and drinking gall and vinegar; but unto thee am I 
speaking, and dothou hearken to what I say” (xii.). Similarly John recounts 
how (vii.) ‘‘ sometimes, desiring to grasp him, I came upon a material, solid 
body, while at other times, when I handled him (ψηλαφῶντος, cp. 1 Jn 1), 
the substance was immaterial, bodiless, and as if it did not exist.” 


The agents of this gnosticising propaganda had evidently 
been itinerant (2 Jn’1°) prophets, laying claim to visions and 
revelations (4!) in support of their teaching. Although some had 
withdrawn (218) or been excommunicated (4*), the church must 
remain on its guard (4). The poison of their bad example 


* The antithesis of John and Cerinthus, unlike that of Paul and Cerinthus 
(Epiph. Haer. xxviii.), is too well based in the tradition of the early church 
about the Hinterland of the ‘Johannine’ literature, to be dismissed as a later 
dogmatic reflection, due to the desire of obtaining apostolic and canonical 
repudiation of that errorist. 


RELATION TO FOURTH GOSPEL 589 


still worked,* and Christians were in danger not merely of being 
deceived by others, but of deceiving themselves (18). Their 
Christianity apparently was of long standing (27), but it was 
not due to the writer. He addresses them as τεκνία, παιδία, 
ἀγαπητοί, and ἀδελφοί, but the authority which breathes through 
his counsels is that of their spiritual director, as one in touch 
with the historical tradition and experience of the faith, not that 
of their founder or of an apostle. 

§ 3. Relation to the Fourth Gospel_—tThe close affinities of 
this writing and the Fourth gospel start the problem not only 
of their chronological order but of their authorship. These 
common features are too striking to require any systematic or 
detailed treatment. Less obvious, but not less vital, are the 
differences between the two writings, and the problem is to 
determine whether such variations denote duality of authorship or 
whether they are compatible with a theory which would account 
for them by pointing to differences of aim and period within 
the career of a single writer, whose theme in the one case is that 
‘Jesus is the Christ,’ and in the other that ‘ the Christ is Jesus.’ 
Identity of authorship by no means follows necessarily from 
a proof that two writings closely resemble one another in style, 
vocabulary, and ideas. In the Fourth gospel and in 1 John we 
have, e.g., the same combination of negative and positive state- 
ments, the use of contrast, the aphoristic tone, the playing on 
ideas, etc. ‘Those who hold that these are outweighed by the 
distinctive characteristics of each writing, are not shut up to 
argue either that the one writer cleverly imitated the peculiarities 
and managed to catch the flavour of his predecessor, or that the 
one wrote (Kreyenbihl) to counteract the other. Their relation- 
ship on the disjunctive hypothesis is accounted for by the 
common language of a group or school in Asia Minor; the 
affinities are partly conscious perhaps, but mainly unconscious. 
This general position has been advocated by S. G. Lange, Horst, 
Cludius, Baur (Theol. Jahrb., 1848, 293f. 1857, 315-331), 
Weisse, Planck, Volkmar, Zeller, Strauss, Holtzmann (/P7Z, 
1881, 690f., 1882, 128f., 316 f., 460f.), S. Davidson, Hoekstra, 
Keim, Scholten, O. Holtzmann (169f.), W. Brickner (Chron. 
305 f.), Liidemann, Matthew Arnold (God and Bible, ed. 1891, 

* The Essenic Ebionitic traits discovered by Wittichen (of. cz. pp. 68 f.) 


are, for the most part, either traits of human nature or inadequately verified ; 
¢.g. the separatism, claims to perfection, etc. 


590 A JOHANNINE TRACT (1 JOHN) 


175, 228f.), Pfleiderer (ZWT7., 1869, 394-421, and Ure. ii. 
446f.), Cone, Grill (Untersuchungen, pp. 305-308), N. Schmidt 
(Prophet of Nazareth, p. 192), Schmiedel, Martineau (Seat of 
Authority, 509-512), Kreyenbihl (Zuglm des Wahrheit, i. 138- 
144), E. F. Scott (Zhe Fourth Gospel, 88 f., 94), Wellhausen, 
Wendt, and Soltau (see below). The arguments in favour of a 
single author are stated by Grimm (SX., 1847, 171f.), B. Weiss 
(— Meyer, pp. 4-9), Jiilicher (Zin/, 212-215), Lepin (L’origine 
du quatricme évangile, 1907, 250f.), Jacquier (JZ. iv. 1-10), 
and R. Law (Zests of Life®, 1909, pp. 339f.), and accepted not 
only by advocates of the apostolic authorship, but, eg., by 
Harnack, E. A. Abbott (2.81. 1818), Clemen (ΖΔ ΗΖ, 1905, 
278), Wernle, Forbes, and Baumgarten. 


(a) The salient linguistic data are as follow. Peculiar to the ep. are: 
ἀγάπη τετελειωμένη, ἀγγελία, ἀνομία, ἀντίχριστος, ἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἱόν, διάνοια, 
ἐκ τινος γινώσκειν, ἐλπίς, ἐπαγγελία, ἔχειν τὸν πατέρα (υἱὸν), ἱλασμός, κοινωνία 
(Ξ-Ξ ἐν εἶναι of gospel?), ὁμολογεῖν τὸν θεόν," παλαίος, παρουσία, ποιεῖν τὴν 
δικαιόσυνην, σπέρμα τοῦ θεοῦ, χρίσμα, and ψευδοπροφῆται. While the ep. 
omits δόξα ft and δοξάζειν, εἶναι ἐκ τῶν ἄνω (κάτω), οὐράνος and ἐπουράνιος, 
πέμπω, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ, and ‘the Father in the Son, The 
Son in the Father ’—all of which are characteristic expressions of the Gospel 
—it also uses ἀπὸ instead of παρὰ with verbs like αἰτεῖν, ἀκούειν, and 
λαμβάνειν, omits entirely the favourite οὖν of the gospel, never uses 
μὲν . . . δὲ, employs particles like γὰρ and δὲ with singular rarity, preferring 
the monotonous καὶ where any particle of connection is used at all, and, e¢.g., 
refrains from using οἷδα with a personal object (cp. Jn 6% 777 152! etc.), 
Such traits of style are far from unimportant in literary criticism. Note, 
further, that the phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, which is fairly frequent in the 
epistle (2° 317 4° etc.) as an expression for God’s love to man, only occurs 
once in the gospel (5.2), and that in the opposite sense of man’s love to God.t 
Also, the perfect ἠγάπηκα, absent from the gospel, occurs once in the epistle 
(419, s.v.1.), as does ἐάν with the indicative (51), It is of minor significance 
that while the gospel uses the adv. imper. μείνατε ‘in the Lord’s mouth, the 
present is used by the writer of the epistle ' (238, cp. Diat. 2437). As for con- 
ceptions, (4) the epistle never cites the OT, and with one exception (31) refrains 
from using OT history or prophecy as a witness to the truths of Christianity. 


* Ὁμολογεῖν is never used in the gospel of confessing sin (as Ep. 1°), but 
always of confessing Christ (97 125). 

+ Perhaps in keeping with its subordination of the metaphysical element 
to the ethical, throughout. So Grill, who points out also (312-313) how 
ight in the epistle invariably and primarily denotes an ethical conception, in 
contrast to the gospel’s use of it to denote knowledge of the divine truth. 

ὦ Dr. Abbott’s arguments to the contrary (Dzat. 2032-2040) do not seem 
quite convincing, but he proves incidentally that even in 1 Jn 55. the genitive 
may be taken faigly as subjective. 


RELATION TO FOURTH GOSPEL 591 


Whether this was owing to the gnostic animus against the OT, or to the 
feeling that such evidence was superfluous (the Christian revelation being 
final in itself),* it is noticeable that the gospel adopts an entirely different 
outlook upon the sacred books of the Jews. The general ideas (c) of 
the two writings also present diverging lines of interest. Thus (i.) while in 
the gospel Christians are related to God the Father through the medium of 
Christ (e.g. 107 9 145 155), God being to Christ as Christ is to his people, the 
relationship becomes more direct in the Ep., where Christians are in God, or 
God in them (2° 37! 44 514), without any specific mention being made of 
Christ’s person as the essential means of communion. This feature might be 
explained f¢ by the consideration that such a conception of Christ would be 
a’ foregone conclusion; the writer might well assume it in addressing 
Christians, and especially Christians within a circle affected by a type of 
thought like that represented in the Fourth gospel. Only, he was addressing 
Christians also in the Fourth gospel, and, once again, this conception of Christ’s 
person is not isolated. There are other indications of a transference to God, 
in the ep., of functions which the gospel reserves for Christ (¢.g., the hearing 
of prayer, 37 51, cp. Jn 14'%), while /igh¢ (1°) is expressly presented as an 
attribute not of the Logos (as in the gospel), but of God. The full significance 
of the latter feature emerges into view when we pass on to a second series (ii. ) 
of ideas. For all the similarities between the two writings on the conception 
of “fe or life eternal, the development of the latter idea (e.g. in 1 Jn 1? 539) 
tends to correlate it in the epistle, not with the soteriological cycle of beliefs 
(as in the gospel), but with the person of Christ, in a theological sense (Grill, 
pp. 301f.). In § Jn 1 the cardinal idea is that of Life as the absolute 
divine reality: ‘‘it is of the Word or Logos which is Life that we are 
speaking (sc. λαλοῦμεν, as Jn 7 etc.). And the Life was manifested.” 
Here the prologue’s special conception of the Logos as personal to Christ is 
eliminated, in the interests of Christian monotheism, the writer meeting by 
anticipation, and upon a christological basis, the difficulty which afterwards 
led to Monarchianism,¢ viz., the fear of suggesting that certain divine eons, 
like the Logos, intervened between God and man. It is not, as in the 
gospel, the Logos, but the Life Eternal which is identified with the person 
of Christ. The latter idea subordinates the metaphysical to the ethical, 
whereas in the gospel the reverse is the case. (iii.) A modification of the 
idea of faith is also noticeable. While in the gospel faith is equivalent to 
the coming of man to the truth and light of God in Christ, or to a reception 
of the words of Jesus in the heart, the writer of the epistle, though far from 
being an intellectualist (cp. 17 2‘ etc.), tends to resolve faith into a confession 


* So Wendt, who shows that, in spite of the absence of any reference to 
the sayings of Jesus, no other early Christian writing voices so frequently and 
so impressively the αὐτὸς ἔφα of the Lord (e.g. 275: 27 3°3 471 50), 

+ In the light of what follows, the concentration of emphasis upon 
obedience to the commandments of God as the ground of assurance, instead 
of upon the name or mediation of Jesus as in the Gospel (yet see 717 14” etc.), 
is probably to be referred (with Pfleiderer) to the larger prominence assigned 
throughout the epistle to the ethical elements of the Johannine mysticism, 

ΖΦ So Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, and Haring. 


592 A JOHANNINE TRACT (I JOHN) 


of Jesus as the Son of God (2% 415% 5!) ; ‘*C’est professer une christologie 
orthodoxe” (Goguel, p. 148). The epistle, again, (iv.) although ignoring 
the χάρις of Jn 116 assigns more prominence than the gospel to the idea of 
sin, and this again carries with itan emphasis upon the propitiatory element in 
the death of Jesus which is absent from the gospel, where the expiatory value 
of Christ’s death (19 115 1719) is secondary (cp. E. F. Scott, of. εξ, 218 f.). 
The signs of Jesus (v.) are not adduced by the epistle in proof of his real 
position as the Christ in whom men are to believe. Such a proof would have 
been entirely consonant with the object of the writing, which aims (1) 
51-18), as does the gospel (20%-8!), at laying a basis for faith in the historical 
Jesus. Yetthe one writing ignores what to the other is essential evidence 
for the messiahship of Jesus (cp. Wendt, Eng. tr. pp. 172f.). Less weight 
attaches to (vi.) the eschatological view of the two writings; for, though “ἠέ 
last hour and the plurality of antichrists are a special feature of the epistle, 
these, and the more spiritual view of the future which marks the gospel, do 
not constitute any radical difference (Reuss). At the same time the epistle 
(417) uses the day of judgment, a synoptic phrase carefully avoided by the 
gospel, and describe the second advent as a παρουσία (2%). There is, 
however, a real difference (vii.) in the conception of the Παράκλητος, who is 
identified in the epistle (21) with Jesus Christ as the Righteous One, whereas, 
in the gospel, Jesus either sends the Paraclete or is at most ὦ Paraclete 
himself. In the gospel the Spirit as the Παράκλητος is the alter ego of 
Jesus, but in the epistle this function is wholly ignored. Here the 
conception of the Spirit as a whole undergoes a striking change. ‘La 
maitrisse de l’Esprit est asservie au joug d’une confession de foi’ (Goguel, p. 
152).* No longer the supreme principle which judges all and is judged by 
none, the Spirit in the epistle requires to be tested by certain criterions (4"%, 
cp. 1 Co 128). Indeed, with the transference of Παράκλητος to Christ, the 
allusions to the Spirit are entirely impersonal and neuter (2” 413). Instead of 
the Son (Jn 14°), the Spirit = ἀλήθεια (5°); and while Christians ave a 
Παράκλητος, it is with the Father, as an intercessor (cp. Ro 8% and Ro 3% 
with 1 Jn 212, He 7 952), rather than as an indwelling Presence in the 
hearts of Christians. ‘‘ In the later theology, the Spirit was regarded almost 
solely as the supreme witness to the orthodox belief and the guide to its 
correct interpretation. John himself does not share in this restricted view, 
which is already traceable in the later writings of his school (cp. 1 Jn 253} 7 
411" 5%), The Spirit, as he conceives it, is a principle of inner development 
by which the traditional form of belief may from time to time be broken up, 
in order to reveal more perfectly their essential content” (E. F. Scott, 340). 
This brief outline will serve to show the delicacy of the problem. Res /udbrica, 
opinio incerta. Upon the whole, however, the lines of evidence appear 
to indicate that the epistle came from a writer who, while belonging to the 
general ‘ Johannine’ school of thought and feeling, occupied slightly different 
ground from that of the author of the Fourth gospel. It is true that 
differences between two writings may be due to difference of standpoint and 


* Though it is too strong to add, ‘par 1a, la doctrine de I’Esprit cesse 
d’étre féconde, elle est énervée et perd toute sa originalité propre et sa 
valeur décisive, nous dirions volontiers, toute sa raison d’étre.’ 


DATE 593 


purpose; ft would be uncritical to insist that a writer must adhere to 
identical forms of expression under varying circumstances, or that he 
expressed his full mind in one writing. Such canons of literary criticism are 
mere ropes of sand. But the characteristic traits of the Fourth gospel and 
the First epistle betray a difference beneath their unity which is best accounted 
for by the supposition that while the writer of the epistle lived and moved 
within the circle in which the Fourth gospel originated, he had an individu- 
ality and purpose of his own. 


§ 4. Period.—The relative position of the tract depends upon 
the answer given to the debated question whether it was com- 
posed before or after the gospel. And if so, was it a preface or 
a postscript? The usual tendency, especially among those who 
attribute the two writings to different authors, is to regard 1 John 
as a more popular re-statement of the main Johannine concep- 
tions, as though the writer was conscious of carrying on, from 
his own point of view, the propaganda of the larger work, de- 
veloping some ideas hinted at in the gospel (6.5. expiation) and 
adding others, but all with the more or less deliberate aim of 
reproducing his master’s position.* These threads of filiation 
are gossamer-webs. It is difficult, e.g., to see how the epistle 
could produce any alteration of attitude towards the gospel. 
The parallels adduced between the two (eg. 112 - Τὴ 11" 2 4. 14 
20%, 14=Jn 154, 21=Jn 1415, 22=Jn 115152, 28—Jn 13% 7510-12 
210-1 — Jn 119-10 7235, 228 — Jn 1522-24, 227 7ῃ 14% 1618, 38 = Jn 
84, 211. 16 Jn 151218, 46— Jn 847, 56 = Jn 193485, 69— Jn 532 84. 36 
87-18, 512— Jn 39, 518 Jn 208), 54#=Jn 1,13:14 16%, 520— Jn 173) 
do not necessarily prove more than an acquaintance with the sub- 
stance of the ‘Johannine’ doctrine which was current before the 
Fourth gospel crystallised it into written shape, and the motive for 
the composition of the homily is not to be found in any supposed 
relation to the gospel. Both works rise from the same plot of 
early Christian soil; both aim at developing the faith of the 
church and (especially the homily) at safeguarding it against 
current errors; both lay stress on the evangelic historical 
tradition ; but, beyond the general fact that the homily pre- 


* Cp. Pfleiderer, Ure. ii. 448 : ‘* Der Briefsteller war ein dem Evangelisten 
nahestehender Mann, sein Schiiler vielleicht, der sich an dem Geist der 
Theologie seines Meisters gebildet hatte. Aber so ging ihm dhnlich wie in 
unserer Zeit den meisten Schiilern Schleiermachers: in dem eifrigen 
Bestreben, die grossen Gedanken des Meisters fiir die gesamte Kirche nutzbar 
und brauckbar zu machen, wurde er konservativer als der Meister selbss 
gewesen.” 


38 


594 A JOHANNINE TRACT (I JOHN) 


supposes the teaching and spirit of the gospel, their mutual 
connection remains obscure. The homily was addressed to 
people familiar with the doctrine of the gospel, and possibly 
with the gospel itself. That it was intended to circulate along 
with it seems a hypothesis suggested by the early juxtaposition 
of the two writings in the canon rather than by any internal 
evidence. 

A good deal depends on whether the triple ἔγραψα, following the triple 
γράφω in the éergemina allocutio of 2'*-\4, is a rhetorical variation, or a specific 
allusion to the Fourth gospel. The latter view is less probable than the 
reference to what precedes (11-2"), or to a lost epistle (so, ¢.g., Michaelis, 
Baljon, Karl); but even these hypotheses are as unnecessary as the conjecture 
that 1! is an implicit allusion to the prologue of the Fourth gospel. It 
does not mend matters, from this point of view, to regard v.! as an inter- 
polation (Calvin and others, cp. Koennecke in BF7. xii. 1. 19-20). 

§ 5. Authorship.—The Homeric hymns, it has been said, 
are neither hymns nor Homers. The so-called ‘first epistle of 
John’ is neither an epistle nor is it John’s—if by John is meant 
the son of Zebedee. The homily is anonymous, and all 
subsequent conjectures about its authorship, either in tradition 
or in modern investigation, are derived from the internal evidence 
of its connection with the Fourth gospel (see above). The most 
attractive form of the latter hypothesis is the semi-pseudonymous 
theory (so, ¢.g., Hausrath, Scholten, Das Euglm nach Johannes, 
68; Thoma, of. cit. pp. 807 f.; Soltau,* ZVW., 1901, 140 f.; 
Pfleiderer, Ure. ii. 448 f. ; Wellhausen, Heitmiiller, Zurhellen), 
that some Asiatic Christian wrote the epistle, as he revised the 
Fourth gospel (especially adding ch. 21), in the interests of the 
beloved disciple; but the obscurity of the whole problem and 
the linguistic data prevent this from rising to more than a level of 
approximate probability. Lord Hailes once pointed out to 
Boswell his additions to a legal paper originally drawn up by Dr. 
Johnson. The writer of ‘First John’ had, in all likelihood, 
some share in the editorial process through which the Fourth 
sospel reached its final form, but the extent of this share is still 
uncertain. 


Whether the author belonged, or wished to represent himself as belonging, 
to the original disciples of Jesus (not necessarily the twelve), depends on the 


* Soltau makes John the presbyter write 1 John and also (Unsere Luglien, 
1910, pp. 110f.) edit the Fourth gospel out of Johannine logia, εἰς 
According to Schwartz, both epistle and gospel were edited with the same 
‘apostolic’ motive, by the same editor. 


LATER TRACES 595 


interpretation of 1“, The spiritual and semi-mystical sense * (cp. Abbott, 
Deat, 1615-1620; Clemen, ZVW., 1905, 277 f.), is borne out by a comparison 
of 44; but it is probably to be combined with the view that the paragraph, 
with its anti-docetic reference, voices the testimony of the apostolic church, as 
represented by the circle of μαθηταὶ rod κυρίου in Asia Minor to which the 
writer belonged. The church stands on the definite incarnation of Jesus Christ 
the Logos, and the apostolic experience of the latter is the experience of the 
church, on which her testimony is based.t The writer is the spokesman of 
this testimony. He uses realistic language which is capable easily of a 
spiritual and ideal interpretation. Even the phrase our hands handled 
(ἐψηλάφησαν, cp. Ac 177) is not unparalleled.t ‘‘No one,” says Origen 
(c. Cels. 7%),§ “415. so foolish as not to see that the word ands is taken 
figuratively, as when John says, our hands have handled.” Irenzus (adv. 
haer. v. 1) observes that the only way we can learn of God and have 
communion with his Son is by ‘magistrum nostrum uidentes et per auditum 
nostrum uocem eius percipientes,’ 


§ 6. Traces in the subsequent literature (cp. Zahn’s GX. 1. 
209 f., 374 f., 905 f., ii. 48 f., 88 f.). 

It is unsafe to attach much weight to the apparent remini- 
scence of 47% (or of 2 Jn 7) in Polyk. ad Phil. 7 (reading 
ἐληλυθότα instead of ἐληλυθέναι).} Even in Ignatius the alleged 
traces (cp. Dietze, SX., 1905, 595 f.) are seldom cogent; 4g. 315 -Ξ- 
Smyrn. vii. (συνέφερε δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀγαπᾶν, ἵνα καὶ ἀναστῶσιν), 317 = 
Smyrn. vi. 2, 5° (cp. 3!”)= 22}. xviii. (ὃς ἐγεννήθη καὶ βαπτίσθη, 
ἵνα τῷ πάθει τὸ ὕδωρ καθαρίσῃ), 42% = Eph. vii. (ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος). 
Still, if Ignatius knew the Fourth gospel, it is ὦ 271071 likely that 
he also knew 1 Jn. Papias, at any rate, is said by Eusebius (iii. 
39) to have used ἡ ‘Iwavvod προτέρα (= ἡ “I. πρώτη, ν. 8?), ze. the 
anonymous tract which, by the time of Eusebius, had come to 
be known as ‘First John’; and there is not the slightest reason 
to suspect or reject this statement. Justin Martyr also (Dial. 
123, where the κληθῶμεν καὶ ἐσμέν of 31 is echoed in καὶ θεοῦ 
τέκνα ἀληθινὰ καλούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν, if we keep his commandments 
= 25) presupposes the homily, so that, although the reminiscences 


* So, e.g., Karl, Harnack, J. Réville, 55-56; von Soden, Holtzmann- 
Bauer, Green (137 f.), and Bacon (fourth Gospel in Research, ete., 189 f.). 

+ ‘The vision and witness of the immediate disciples . . . remains as 
an abiding endowment of the living body ” (Westcott, p. 153). 

t Tacit. Agrécola, 45, mox nostre duxere Heluidium in carcerem manus. 

§ Cp. also Clem. Recogn. i. 17, “δ set forth so openly who that prophet 
was, that I seemed to have before my eyes, and to handle with my hand, 
the proofs which he adduced.” 

|| Some, e.g. Volkmar (Ursprung d. Evglicn, 47 f.), even hold that it ia 
Polykarp who is quoted. 


596 THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


in Clem. Rom. (495 κοῦ Ξ 418) and even Hermas (Mand. 41: 
227) and the Didaché (105= 418) * are too slight to prove more 
than the existence of current ‘Johannine’ terminology, the 
writing must have been circulated in Asia Minor, at any rate, 
before the end of the first quarter of the second century. The 
terminus a quo is approximately the general period of the Fourth 
gospel’s composition; but there is no decisive ground for the 
priority of either, even upon the hypothesis that both were 
written by the same author. The aim of each is too special to 
admit of the conjecture that the epistle was intended to ac- 
company, much less to introduce, the larger work. By the end 
of the second century the epistle seems to have been fairly well 
known (Clem. Alex. S¢vom. ii. 15. 66; Tert. de Pudic. 19; Iren. 
ili. 16. 8), and in the Muratorian Canon it appears to be reckoned 
as an appendix or sequel to the Fourth gospel. There is no 
evidence for the position taken up by the Alogi to the epistle ; 
the statement of Epiphanius, that they rejected all the Johannine 
epistles together with the gospel and apocalypse (Aer. 57°%4, 
τάχα δὲ καὶ τὰς ἐπιστολάς" συνάδουσι yap καὶ αὗται τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ 
καὶ τῇ ἀποκαλύψει) is a pure guess, unsupported by any early 
tradition. 

On the curious title ad Parthos (Aug. Quest. Evang. ii. 39), see above, 
p- 476. An actual Parthian or Persian destination for 1 John was once 
defended by Paulus and Michaelis (vi. 399-400), on the ground that the 


writer’s allusions to the dualism of light and darkness were designed to correct 
the Zoroastrian philosophy of religion ! 


(C) THE JOHANNINE TRADITION. 


The rearrangement of the so-called ‘Johannine’ literature, 
outlined above, is a tentative hypothesis which involves some 
resetting of the traditional data upon John the son of Zebedee 
and John the presbyter. It has been assumed provisionally 
that the tradition is correct which witnesses to an early martyr- 
dom of John the son of Zebedee as well as of his brother; that 


* As in Diognet. 10° πρὸς ods ἀπέστειλε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ Ξε 4°, 
or 1οϑ- 413, Ifthe prayers of the Didaché represent the sacramental prayers 
of the Palestinian and Syrian churches (cp. Andresen, ZV/V. iii. 135 f.; 
Kreyenbiihl, i. 706f.), they may have been known to the author of the 
Fourth gospel, e.g. in chs. 6 and 17; but the former passage, at any rate, 
resembles a midrashic discourse on Ps 78 (cp. Klein’s Der alteste christlicha 
Katechismus, pp. 220f.). 


EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS 597 


while the former may conceivably be identified with the beloved 
disciple of the Fourth gospel and the original authority for some 
of its special traditions upon sayings and (to a lesser degree) the 
deeds of Jesus, he was not its author; that the apocalypse 
probably, and 2 and 3 John certainly, were written by John the 
presbyter in Asia Minor towards the end of the first century ; 
and that the anonymous author of the Fourth gospel may have 
also composed (though probably he did not) the homily or tract 
which has come down to us under the canonical title of 1 John. 
The internal evidence of the literature upon the three latter 
points has been already discussed. It now remains to give an 
outline * of the more salient features in the later tradition of 
the second and third centuries which bear out these conclusions. 

The modern investigator of the Johannine problem resembles 
the woodman in Theokritus ; he is bewildered by the rich variety 
of topics presented to him, and hardly able to decide where he 
would do best to begin his operations. 

Ἴδαν és πολύδενδρον ἀνὴρ ὑλατόμος ἐλθών 


παπταίνει, παρεόντος ἄδην, πόθεν ἄρξεται ἔργου" 
τί πρῶτον καταλέξω ; ἐπεὶ πάρα μυρία εἰπεῖν. 


The five writings in the NT canon which were eventually 
grouped together as instrumentum Johanneum are surrounded 
by a thick undergrowth of traditions during the second and 
third centuries, which is neither homogeneous nor lucid. In 
order to clear a path, it is necessary to begin, as we have done, 
with the internal evidence of the writings themselves. The 
further problem now remains, how to account satisfactorily for 
the rise and variations of the later tradition, which associated 
these writings with the personality of a Christian disciple, John, 
who lived in Asia Minor towards the close of the first century. 

§ 1. Zhe Papias-traditions.—The earliest data are again, as 
in the case of the synoptic problem, furnished by Papias; his 
writings are only extant in the shape of fragmentary quotations 
in Eusebius and other writers of a later age, but fortunately they 
preserve a tradition which is prior to any other. 


* The following paragraphs make no attempt to survey the dusty and misty 
history of opinion upon the subject, or to summarise the ramified details of the 
problem. Their aim is simply to state one or two of the cardinal results 
of historical investigation, which justify, in the opinion of the present writer, 
the hypothesis underlying the above literary criticism of the Johannine 
writings. 


598 


The importance of the evidence of Papias on this matter is shown by the 
fact that he is, as is admitted on almost all hands (¢.g. by Lightfoot and 
Gutjahr, no less than by Harnack, Réville, Schwartz, Mommsen, and Corssen), 
che source for the presbyter-traditions of Irenzeus in the second and fifth 
books of the adv. Haer., by the possibility that the appeal of Irenzeus to the 
Asiatic elders who had known John and some other apostles goes back 
primarily at least to the elders of the Papias-tradition, and by the probability 
that the Muratorian Canon (or Hippolytus, its author) borrowed to some 


THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


extent from the bishop of Hierapolis (Lightfoot). 


The first fragment * quoted by Eusebius (1. Z. iii. 39) is as 


follows :— 

οὐκ ὀκνήσω δὲ σοι καὶ ὅσα ποτε παρὰ 
τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καλῶς ἔμαθον καὶ 
καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα, συγκατατάξαι ταῖς 
ἑρμηνείαις, διαβεβαιούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν 
ἀλήθειαν. οὐ γὰρ τοῖς τὰ πολλὰ λέγου- 
σιν ἔχαιρον ὥσπερ οἱ πολλοὶ, ἀλλὰ 
τοῖς τἀληθῆ διδάσκουσιν, οὐδὲ τοῖς τὰς 
ἀλλοτρίας ἐντολὰς μνημονεύουσιν, ἀλλὰ 
τοῖς τὰς παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου τῇ πίστει 
δεδομένας καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς παραγινομένας 
τῆς ἀληθείας. εἰ δὲ που καὶ παρακολου- 
θηκώς τις τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἔλθοι, τοὺς 
τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον t λόγους Ἔ 
τί ᾿Ανδρέας ἢ τί Πέτρος εἶπεν ἢ τί 
Φίλιππος ἢ τί Θωμᾶς ἢ ᾿Ιάκωβος ἢ τί 
᾿Ιωάννης ἢ Ματθαῖος ἣ τις ἕτερος τῶν 
τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητῶν, ἅ re’ Ἀριστίων καὶ 
ὁ πρεσβύτερος Iwdvyns, οἱ τοῦ Κυρίου 
μαθηταὶ, λέγουσιν. οὐ γὰρ τὰ ἐκ τῶν 
βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν με ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάμ- 
βανον, ὅσον τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ 
μενούσψε, 


Nor shall I hesitate, along with my 
own interpretations, to set down for 
thee whatsoever I learnt with care 
and remembered (or recounted) with 
care from the elders, guaranteeing its 
truth. For, unlike the many, I did 
not take pleasure in those who have 
much to say, but in those who teach 
what is true; not in those who recall 
foreign commandments, but in those 
who recall the commandments given 
by the Lord to faith and reaching us 
from the truth itself. Furthermore, 
if any one chanced to arrive who 
had been really (καὶ) a follower of 
the elders, I would inquire as to the 
sayings of the elders—as to what 
Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or 
Thomas or James, or John or Matthew 
or any other of the Lord’s disciples, 
also as to what Aristion and the 
presbyter John, the Lord’s disciples, 
say. For I supposed that things out 
of books would not be of such use to 
me as the utterances of a living voice 
which was still with us. 


* Critical discussions by H. J. Holtzmann (BZ. iii. 352-360), Schwartz 


(Der Tod da. Séhne Zebed. 9 f.), B. W. Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and 
Debate, pp. tor f. 

{ The Syriac version presupposes συνέκρινον (so Gutjahr). It is an open 
question whether ἅ re . . . λέγουσιν depends, like rl’Avdpéas . . . μαθητῶν, 
on λόγους or directly (so, ¢.g., Harnack, Corssen, Schmiedel) on ἀνέκρινον 
λόγους. Im the latter case, Aristion and the presbyter John would be 
singled out from the rest of the πρεσβύτεροι. The visitor would only be 
able to report what the preshbyters knew of the apostles, but he would be 
able to speak, from personal intercourse, about the other two 

1 Grammatically, this might mean either (so, ¢.g., Zahn) that Andrew, 


EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS 599 


As the opening words indicate, the excerpt is taken from the preface to 
the (five books of) ἐξηγήσεις λογίων κυριακῶν, which consisted of interpreta- 
tions or expositions of λόγια κυριακά, together with διηγήσεις (explanations) 
of the sayings of Jesus, such as Aristion furnished, and παραδόσεις such as 
those of John the presbyter (H. £. iii. 39. 14). These ἐξηγήσεις of Papias 
may have been directed against gnostic commentaries like the lengthy 
Exegetica of Basilides ; if so, his language is carefully chosen (pp. 187-188). 
These verbose writers also made their appeal to an apostolic tradition (cp. ¢... 
Tert. de prescr. haer. 25), which was supposed to have been secret and esoteric : 
Papias therefore claims that his apostolic traditions are sifted and direct. For 
the ‘foreign commandments,’ see 1 Jn 27%, 


The first problem of the passage (a) is to ascertain the exact 
relation between Papias and his authorities. Writing probably 
between A.D. 140 and 150, he is recalling inquiries made in his 
earlier life (¢.e. during the first quarter, perhaps even the first 
decade of the second century). But are the ‘sayings of the 
elders’ equivalent to what follows, or does the phrase mean 
their reports of what the following disciples of the Lord had 
said? The latter is more probable. These πρεσβύτεροι were 
not apostles; their λόγοι related what the apostles or primitive 
disciples had said.* As Eusebius assumed, the πρεσβύτεροι of 
Papias were simply pupils or successors (γνώριμοι -- μαθηταὶ τῶν 
ἀποστόλων) of the primitive disciples. We get three stages, 
therefore: (i.) the apostles or disciples of the Lord, then 
(ii.) the πρεσβύτεροι who preserved their traditions, and finally 
(iii.) followers of the πρεσβύτεροι. Papias had never known any 
of the original apostles. For information about their teaching he 
depended on men whom Irenzeus (adv. Haer. v. 5. 1) described 
as οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῶν ἀποστόλων μαθηταί. Even with these he 
could not maintain any continuous intercourse; he had to fall 
back upon casual visitors to his parish or diocese who were in a 
position to report their oral teaching. The alternative is to put 
(i.) and (ii.) together and regard οἱ πρεσβύτεροι as including, if not 
equivalent to, the personal disciples of Jesus mentioned by name. 
This exegesis has the advantage of giving an apparently lucid sense 
to the third sentence ; what the elders told their followers was 


etc., were the elders in question, or (so, ¢.g., Schwartz, Corssen, Kreyenbithl : 
ii. 735 f., Abbott) that the λόγοι of the elders related to what Andrew and 
the rest said. The latter view interposes more space between Papias and 
the disciples than the former. 

* This is now admitted by Belser (/V7. 33f.), who agrees that the inter 
pretation of Eusebius is correct on this point. 


600 THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


what they (#e. Andrew, etc.) knew of Jesus. Buti P 5! is a 
slender peg on which to hang the assertion that the (twelve) 
apostles could be called πρεσβύτεροι by a man in the period of 
Papias, even if πρεσβύτεροι were rendered “ancient worthies.” 
Besides, οἱ πρεσβύτεροι cannot be identified with Andrew, etc., for 
Peter and James at least had died before Papias was born; and 
if of π. merely included Andrew, etc., he would naturally have 
written παρὰ τινων τῶν πρεσβυτέρων instead of referring twice to 
οἱ 7. as a homogeneous group. Finally, there is an implicit 
distinction between οἱ π. and οἱ tod Κυρίου μαθηταί. 

This opens up the second (4) problem. Why are Aristion 
and John the presbyter called οἱ τ. x. pafyrai? Unless it is in 
the general sense of Christian (Ac 91), the words are probably 
either a primitive corruption or an interpolation (Abbott, 281. 
1815; Mommsen in ZVW., 1902, 156-159). For the latter 
hypothesis there is some textual evidence (e.g. the Armenian and 
Syriac versions) ; on the former, we may either add μαθητῶν after 
κυρίου (Renan, iv. pp. xxill f., vi. 48, and Abbott, 2x.‘ iii. 
245 f.), or, better still, read (Bacon, /BL., 1898, 176-183) τούτων 
(by a natural corruption, TOYT@ passed into TOYKY). 

The (c) third problem relates to the change of tense in εἶπεν 
and λέγουσιν. The natural sense of the distinction, unless it 
is a rhetorical variation (so, e.g., Lightfoot and Abbott), is that 
Aristion and John the presbyter were still alive at the period to 
which Papias refers. So far as the text is concerned, they may 
have been among the πρεσβύτεροι from whom Papias had once 
(ποτέ) learnt. Eusebius says that Papias claimed to be one of 
their hearers (Παπίας... ᾿Αριστίωνος καὶ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου Ἰωάννου 
αὐτήκοον ἑαυτόν φησι γενέσθαι) ; ‘at least,’ he adds, ‘ Papias often 
mentions them and inserts traditions of theirs in his own pages.’ 
The reason given by the historian is obviously too slight to bear 
the weight of his inference, for Papias might have derived these 
traditions indirectly. Nevertheless, there is no reason why he 
should not have come into personal touch at one time in his life 
with Aristion and John the presbyter. The chronological 
difficulty is not insuperable. Even if they had been personal 
disciples of the Lord, they might have survived till the last decade 
of the first century—which, on a fair estimate of the age of 
Papias, would permit him to have met them in his youth. If 
they had not been personal disciples of Jesus, the likelihood that 
Papias had once been in close touch with them is increased, 


EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS 601 


although at Hierapolis he seems to have only been able to get 
information about them. This does not necessarily imply that 
they were not in Asia Minor at the time. Had they been 
stationed at Ephesus it is difhcult to account for Papias’ lack of 
access to them; but, as Keim (i. 222) observes, ‘ Asia Minor 
is a wide word, even without Ephesus,” and it is not a necessary 
deduction from Papias to argue that these witnesses to the 
Palestinian tradition must have been in Palestine (Bacon).* 
Nor does it follow that they were dead, and that λέγουσιν refers 
to their writings (Drummond, 199f.), or at least to writings in- 
corporating their traditions. This would allow them still to be 
reckoned as personal disciples of Jesus, but it is not easy to see 
why Eusebius in that case did not allude to their works ; besides, 
the context of Papias (with its immediate praise of oral tradition 
in preference to written) rather discourages this view. 

Finally, as Eusebius proceeds to indicate in commenting on 
the passage, (4) Papias distinguishes between the apostle John, 
who is simply ranked among the apostolic figures of a bygone 
age, and the presbyter John, who belongs to a different and later 
group. This is a most important result for the criticism of the 
Johannine tradition. Haussleiter (Zeol. Lit.-Blatt, 1896, 465- 
468) and Hjelt, expanding a suggestion of Renan (iv. 568), propose 
to omit ἢ te Ἰωάννης, on the ground that the omission leaves 
the text more symmetrical (cp. Camerlynck, 125 f.). Zahn, who 
(IVT. ὃ 51) rules out this conjecture as daring, reaches the 
same end by making Papias refer clumsily to the apostle John in 
both connections (so Jacquier, iv. pp. 99 f., and Lepin, pp. 133 f.). 
But neither theory is justifiable. John the presbyter is not to be 
emended out of existence in the interests of John the apostle. 

The second fragment of Papias, which refers to John the 
apostle, corroborates the first by proving not only that he did 
not survive to a late age, but that he died early as a martyr. 
The setting of this fragment is less clear than that of the former, 
but it has the compensating advantage of being in line with a 


* Aristion and Ariston, as we know from Plutarch and Aristotle, could be 
used of the same person (the latter variant occurs here in Syr. and Arm. 
versions), but the Aristion of Papias was not the Ariston of Pella to whom 
Eusebius elsewhere refers (cp. Bacon, DCG. i. 114-118, against Resch, 7U. 
x. 2. 453f.). There is more, though not enough, to be said for the identification 
of John the presbyter (supposing he was not a personal disciple of Jesus) 
with John the seventh head of the church at Jerusalem (Schlatter). 


602 THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


piece of evidence from the synoptic tradition. The evidence for 
the early martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee is, in fact, three- 
fold: (a) a prophecy of Jesus preserved in Mk 1099=Mt 20%, 
(4) the witness of Papias, and (c) the calendars of the church. 


The tradition is accepted and defended, on various grounds, by Schwartz 
(op. c#t.), Erbes (see below), Bousset (7'R., 1905, 225 f., 277f.), Pfleiderer 
(Ure. ii. 411), Kreyenbihl (i. 366f.), Badham (4/7. iii. 729-740, viii. 
539-554), Menzies and Wellhausen and J. Weiss (on Mk 10%), Bacon 
(Zxp.7, 1907, 236f., and on Mk 10%), Jiilicher (77. 377 f.), Loisy (RAR., 
1904, 568 f.), Schmiedel (#Bz. 2509-2510), Burkitt (Gosfel History and tts 
Transmission, pp. 250f.), Holtzmann-Bauer (pp. 19f.), Forbes (pp. 165f.), 
and Heitmiiller. 


MARK. MATTHEW. 
τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω πίεσθε, τὸ μὲν ποτήριόν μου πίεσθε 
καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι 
βαπτιζήσεσθε, 
τὸ δὲ καθίσαι ἐκ δεξιῶν μον ἢ ἐξ] τὸ δὲ καθίσαι ἐκ δεξιῶν μον καὶ ἐξ 
εὐωνύμων εὐωνύμων, 
οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν δοῦναι, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν τοῦτο δοῦναι, 
ἀλλ᾽ οἷς ἡτοίμασται. ἀλλ᾽ οἷς ἡτοίμασται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου. 


Mt. as usual omits the parallel clause (cp. 22!7=Mk 12} 
etc.) and adds the last four words (cp. 258: and 41, where, in the 
latter passage, ὃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ πατήρ pov, as read by Iren. Orig. 
Hil. Ὁ and some old Latin MSS, has been altered into τὸ ἥτοι- 
μασμένον). Whether Luke omitted the whole scene * because it 
appeared to limit the authority of Jesus or because it disparaged 
the apostles, it is difficult to say. In any case the primitive 
character of the saying is as patent as its meaning, viz., that 
both James and John were to suffer martyrdom. “A quelque 
point de vue qu’on se place, clairvoyance miraculeuse de Jésus 
ou prédiction mise dans sa bouche fost eventum, Jean et Jacques 
ont bu la méme ‘coupe’ et subi le méme ‘ baptéme’ que lui” 
(A. Réville, Jésus de Nazareth, i. 354). What drinking the cup 
of Jesus meant, is evident from passages like Mk 1486 and 
Mart. Polyk. 14 (ἐν ἀριθμῷ τῶν μαρτύρων ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ). The hypothesis that Jesus was simply referring in 
general terms to persecution and hardship does not do justice to 
the specific and definite character of the prediction. Unless it 
is assumed (as, ¢g., by O. Holtzmann) that this anticipation of 


* Spitta’s attempt to prove that his favourite Luke was correct (2ZVW., 
1910, 39-58), and that the passage, a later synoptic addition, did not originally 
refer to death, is rightly set aside by Schwartz (did. 89-104). 


EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS 603 


Jesus was not fulfilled, we must admit that he foretold a martyr- 
death for the two men, and also that this had come to pass by 
the time Mark’s gospel was published. James was beheaded in 
the beginning of the fifth decade by Herod Agrippa 1. (Ac 123), 
although Luke fails to chronicle his death any more than that of 
Peter. It is possible that other names* originally lay in the 
isolated tradition or source which is incorporated in Ac 12}, 
but it is not necessary to assume that the two brothers died 
simultaneously at this early date (so, e.g., Schwartz and Badham), 
and it is extremely improbable that John’s name was sub- 
sequently omitted under stress of the dominant Ephesian 
legend (Schwartz), after a.D. 150. This involves a tissue of 
historical difficulties,t including the identification of John Mark 
with the John of Gal 1-2. It is unlikely that the former would 
be ranked alongside of Peter, the pillar-apostle. If the death of 
John the son of Zebedee fell within the subsequent period 
covered by Acts, the lack of any allusion to it is simply another 
of the many gaps which are visible in Luke’s narrative. 

The fact of the martyrdom of John is, however, corroborated 
very soon by (4) a statement of Papias, in the second book of 
his expositions of Λόγια κυριακά, that John “was killed by the 
Jews, thus plainly fulfilling along with his brother the prophecy 
of Christ regarding them and their own confession and common 
agreement concerning him” (ὑπὸ ᾿Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη, πληρώσας 
δηλαδὴ μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ περὶ αὐτῶν πρόρρησιν κνὶ 
τὴν ἑαυτῶν ὁμολογίαν περὶ τούτου καὶ συγκατάθεσιν) The 
evidence for this important quotation (of which the first three 
words alone belong to Papias) goes back to the best MS (codex 
Coislinianus, 305) of Georgios Hamartolos (ninth century), who, 

*<“* Ptliche andere, die ebenfalls den Zeugentod erlitten, werden nicht 
einmal mit Namen genannt, als waren sie eine nicht der Rede werte Beilage 
. . . Man kann sich kaum des Verdachtes erwehren, dass Lukas hier 


gewisse Namen unterdriickt hat. Vielleicht auch nur einen einzigen” 
(Wellhausen, Molten zur Apgeschtchie, 9). 

+ Schwartz (see p. 284, and ZVW., 1910, 100f.) tries a chronological 
hypothesis, by placing Paul’s journey (Ac 13-14) after, not before, the events 
of Ac 15, and taking 1177 and 151-164 as versions of the same event, in order 
to allow Paul’s conflict with the pillar-apostles at Jerusalem (Gal 118 2!) to 
precede A.D. 43-44, the date of the martyrdom of the son of Zebedee; but 
the chronology is highly speculative (see above, p. 309), involving the con- 
version of Paul in A.D. 28-29 and the crucifixion a year or two earlier. 

t Then follows Mk 10%. It is impossible, with Godet, Gutjahr, and 
others, to minimise ἀνῃρέθη, here or in Georgios, into injury or exile. 


604 THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


ἃ propos of the synoptic logion (Mk 10%"), declares in his 
Chronicle that John the apostle after writing his gospel did 
suffer martyrdom (Czron. iii. 134. 1), buttressing the statement 
upon Papias and Origen. The former is miscalled αὐτόπτης 
τούτου γενόμενος, and the reference to the latter* seems 
erroneous. But the recent publication (7U., 1888, v. 2, 170) of 
the de Boor fragment of what is evidently an epitome (7th to 
8th cent.), based on the Χριστιανικὴ ἱστορία or Chronicle of 
Philip Sidetes (5th cent.), removes all doubts as to whether 
Papias really wrote something to this effect. This chronicler 
incidentally lends a powerful support to the former allusion, by 
quoting thus: ‘Papias in his second book says that John the 
divine (6 θεολόγος) and James his brother were killed by the 
Jews’ (ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν). While this quotation cannot be 
verbally exact, as θεολόγος is not known to have been applied 
to John earlier than the close of the fourth century (cp. Bousset, 
p. 227, as against Schwartz), it is indubitable that the work of 
Papias must have contained some statement of this nature 
about the two sons of Zebedee.t The excerpts are both late; 
the later of the two may be taken from the epitome of Philip (cp. 
Funk’s Patres Afost. i. 368 f.), and Philip’s reputation as an inde- 
pendent historian is not particularly high (cp. Socrates, 27. 2. 
vii. 27; Photius, Cod. 35); but, although absolute certainty is 
unattainable, our deduction is that there are no very valid 
reasons for conjecturing that they both mistook the sense of 
some passage in Papias,{ which either (so Drummond) referred 
to John as μάρτυς (not in the tragic but in the ordinary sense 
of the term), or described the martyrdom of John (ze. the 


* Origen, i Mf. τ. xvi. 6, already explains the synoptic saying, with 
regard to John, by means of the tradition which identified him with the John 
of the apocalypse. 

¢ On the extreme improbability of the conjectures (cp. Gutjahr, pp. 
107 f.) by which Lightfoot (Zssays on Supernat. Religion, pp. 211 f.), Zahn, 
Schlatter (8.2.7. ii. 3. pp. 50 f.), and Harnack would eliminate the son of 
Zebedee from the text of Georgios, see Schmiedel (#42. 2509 f.) and 
Clemen (4/7., 1905, 648 f.). 

t Still less, that Papias himself, an ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ, was in error if he made 
such a statement. ‘‘If Papias made it, the question remains whether he 
made it under some misapprehension, or merely by way of expressing his 
conviction that the prophecy of Mk. x. 39 had found a literal fulfilment. 
Neither explanation is very probable in view of the early date of Papias,” 
Bwete, Apocalypse of St. John, p. clxxy, 


EARLY MARTYRDOM 605 


Baptist) and James the Lord’s brother (so Bernard, conjectur- 
ing that OAAEAPOCAYTOYKAIIAKG@BOC is a corruption of 
OAAEA®POCTOYKYIAKWBOC). These conjectures are in- 
genious but unnecessary. As to the former theory, the whole 
trend of the later ecclesiastical tradition was in the opposite 
direction, to regard the witness of John as non-tragic. As to 
the latter, while the two Jameses were repeatedly confused in 
later tradition, it is no argument against James the son of 
Zebedee to say that he was not literally killed by the Jews, for 
the same expression is applied to Jesus (eg. Ac 238 τοῦτον... 
ἀνείλατε), though Herod in the one case and Pilate in the 
other were responsible for an act which pleased or was prompted 
by the Jews. Furthermore, the collocation of John the Baptist 
and James the Lord’s brother is much less natural than that of 
the two sons of Zebedee. 

Upon the whole, then, there does not appear to be any par- 
ticularly strong ground for the rejection of the Papias-tradition, e.g. 
by Harnack (ACZ. ii. 1. 662 f.; ZZZ., 1909, 10-12, in a review 
of Bernard), Drummond (pp. 227 f.), Stanton (GAD. i. 166 f.), 
Zahn (/orschungen, vi. 147 f.), H. B. Workman (Persecution in 
the Early Church, 1906, 358-361), Lepin (L’origine du quatr. 
évangile, pp. 108 f.), Abbott (Diat. 2935-2941), J. H. Bernard 
(drish Church Quarterly, 1908, 51-66), and J. Armitage Robinson 
(Zhe Historical Character of St. John’s Gospel, 1908, pp. 64-80), 
if it can be connected organically with the subsequent and 
divergent traditions of the church. Before proceeding to 
demonstrate this connection, however, we must weigh the fact 
that (2) the evidence of some ancient calendars (Egli, ZWT., 
1891, pp. 279 f.; Erbes, ZKG., 1901, pp. 200 f.) favours 
indirectly the existence of such a tradition. In the fourth 
century Syriac,* “John and James, the apostles in Jerusalem,” 
are commemorated together as martyrs there on Dec. 27 
between Stephen (Dec. 26) and Paul and Peter (in Rome, Dec. 
28); the Armenian and Gothico-Gallic agree, and _ possibly 
the original form of the sixth century Carthaginian ¢ (corrobor- 


* Edited by W. Wright, Journ. Sacred Lit. (1865) 361., 423 f.3 cp. 
H. Achelis, die Martyrologten (1900), pp. 30-71. In view of ordinary usage 
and the mention of Rome in connection with Paul and Peter, it is no 
probable that Jerusalem here denotes (so Gutjahr) merely the place of the 
festival’s celebration, and not the locality of the martyrdom. 

t Where a scribe in the extant text has wrongly put John the Baptis: 


606 THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


ated by the North African De Rebaptismate, ¢. A.D. 250, which 
contains this sentence: ‘‘ He said to the sons of Zebedee, ‘ Are 
ye able?’ For he knew the men had to be baptized, not only in 
water but also in their own blood”). Two calendars, from the 
East and the West respectively, thus reflect a belief that John 
the apostle suffered a martyr-death. The former tallies with 
the evidence of a Syriac homily of Aphrahat (a.D. 344), de 
persecutione, which (§ 23) bids its hearers listen to “these 
names of martyrs, of confessors, and of the persecuted,” and, 
after reciting the stories of OT worthies, proceeds, ‘Great 
and excellent is the martyrdom of Jesus. He surpassed in 
affliction and in confession all who were before or after. And 
after him was the faithful martyr Stephen whom the Jews stoned. 
Simon also and Paul were perfect martyrs. And James 
and John walked in the footsteps of Christ their master.” 
Plainly these are all examples of the first of the classes 
mentioned, viz. the martyrs. Aphrahat then adds examples of 
confessors. ‘Also, others of the apostles thereafter in diverse 
places confessed and proved true martyrs.” Finally, he notes 
the persecuted. ‘And also concerning our brethren who are 
in the West, in the days of Diocletian there came great afflic- 
tion and persecution,” etc. Upon the whole, then, the evidence 
of the early catholic calendars, though not on the same footing 
as that of the two other blocks of evidence, serves to corroborate 
substantially the tradition which they embody. 

Further confirmation® of this, the earliest tradition upon 
John the apostle, is furnished incidentally by Herakleon, the 
early gnostic commentator on the fourth gospel (cp. Clem. 
Strom. iv. 9), who mentions, in connection with Lk 121-12, those 
who had escaped martyrdom, “ Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, 
and many others.” John’s name is significantly omitted from 
the list, for in view of his contemporary importance it is hardly 
possible that he could have been included among the ‘“‘ many 
others.” As time went on, the dominant Ephesian legend of 


(who is commemorated on June 24th) instead of John the apostle, possibly 
owing to the mention of Herod (confusing the Herod of Ac 12? with him of 
Mk 6); cp. Achelis, of. cét. pp. 18-29. Zahn (Forsch. vi. 147 f.) and 
some others even propose to read John the Baptist for John the apostle in 
the Papias-fragment (see above). 

* Cp. Keim, v. 53 f., who already recognised, with Volkmar, that the 
tradition represented by Georgios Ilamartolos must apply to John the apostle, 
His arguments were not fully met by Grimm in ZW7., 1874, 121 f. 


EARLY MARTYRDOM 607 


the long-lived apostle, due in part to deductions from the 
Fourth gospel and the apocalypse, in part to the confusion of 
John the presbyter and John the apostle, tended to obliterate 
not only John the presbyter’s figure, but the far-away tradition 
of John the apostle’s early death. It is remarkable, however, 
to find the latter vibrating still at one or two places. Thus, 
while Clement of Alexandria tells the story * of John and the 
robber, which implied his long life, he also (Strom. vii. 17, ἡ δὲ 
ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ, t.e. Christ, μέχρι ye τῆς Παύλου λειτουργίας ἐπὶ 
Νέρωνος τελειοῦται) assumes that all the teaching apostles had 
closed their careers before a.D. 70. Similarly Chrysostom in 
one homily (Ixxvi.) says that John the apostle ‘lived for a long 
while after the capture of Jerusalem,” while in another (lxv.) 
he expounds Mt 20?3 upon the lines of the earlier tradition as 
a prophecy of martyr-death for the sons of Zebedee. Even 
Gregory of Nyssa may be cited as one of the later, perhaps 
unconscious, witnesses to the accuracy of the Papias-tradition, 
since in his Zaudatio Stephant, as well as in his de Basilio magno, 
he groups Peter, James, and John as martyred apostles, and places 
them between Stephen and Paul. The Muratorian canon, which 
already vindicates the canonicity of the Johannine writings by 
means of the apostolic authorship, had also reflected indirectly 
the Papias-tradition by assuming that the Fourth gospel was 
composed while the apostles were still together (1.6. before a.p. 
70), and by asserting that in writing to seven churches Paul was 
simply “‘sequens prodecessoris sui Iohannis ordinem.” The un- 
chronological nature of the latter remark was due not simply to 
the canonical prestige of the Johannine writings, but to the 
vague influence of the tradition which in one form associated 
John’s literary exploits and experiences of persecution with 
Claudius and Nero. A similar fluctuation between the tradi- 
tion of the martyrdom and that of the banishment occurs in 
the enigmatic passage, Tert. de prescr. heret. 36 (the apostrophe 
to the church of Rome, “ubi Petrus passioni dominice ade- 
quatur ; ubi Paulus Iohannis exitu coronatur [cp. the Muratorian 
canon’s order of John and Paul]; ubi apostolus Iohannes, post- 
eaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam 
relegatur”). The story of his scatheless immersion in a cauldron 
of boiling oil, which apparently goes back to the Acta Johannis 


* It is late and pretty and doubtful, like the tale of 51: Walter Ralegh 
and his cloak. 


508 THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


(cp. Zahn’s ed. pp. cxvif.), was a rejuvenating touch introduced in 
order to harmonise the older tradition of his martyrdom with his 
1egendary longevity. His ‘ baptism’ was thus made harmless. He 
became a μάρτυς in the double sense of the term. The original 
setting of the story was probably in Nero’s reign (cp. Jerome, 
adv. Jovin. i. 26, reporting Tertullian) ; afterwards, when he was 
identified with John the seer and witness of the apocalypse, the 
Domitianic period of the latter led to the subsequent transference 
of the tale from Nero to Domitian. The other legend, that he 
drank a cup of poison unharmed, betrays the same tendency to 
evade the literal implication of the synoptic prophecy ; but in this 
case the feat was readily transferred to him from Justus Barsabbas 
(so Papias quoted in Eus. . £. iil. 39. 9)—which would be all 
the more easy, as Badham ingeniously points out, since the 
Encratite phraseology made Christ remove from John “the 
serpent’s poison,” 2.6. sexual desire. Another legend, that of 
John and Cerinthus in the bathhouse (Eus. Z. £. iii. 28. 6), is 
also told of Ebion (Epiph. xxx. 24) and of a Jewish rabbi during 
Hadrian’s reign. 

§ 2. The Ireneus-tradition.—If these deductions from the 
Papias-traditions are correct, the later testimony of Irenzeus * 
must be erroneous. Irenzus, in his letter to Florinus (Eus. 
H. E. ν. 20), warns him against certain δόγματα. Ταῦτα τὰ 
δόγματα οἱ mpd ἡμῶν πρεσβύτεροι, οἱ καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις 
συμφοιτήσαντες, οὐ παρέδωκάν σοι. Then he reminds Florinus 
of one of these πρεσβύτεροι, viz. ὃ μακάριος καὶ ἀποστολικὸς 
πρεσβύτερος, Polykarp, in whose company he (Irenzeus) παῖς ἔτι 
dy (2.6. in his teens) ἐν τῇ κάτω ᾿Ασίᾳ had seen Florinus. Irenzeus 
says he can remember how Polykarp used to describe his inter- 
course with John and also with the rest who had seen the Lord, 
and how he used to repeat their sayings and traditions about 
Jesus (πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς). Polykarp was thus one 


* Defences of its trustworthiness by Stanton (GHD. i. 213f.), V. Rose 
(RB., 1897, 516-524), and Gwatkin (Contemp. Keview, 1897, 222-226). 
According to F. G. Lewis (Zhe Jreneus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel, 
lis Extent, Meaning, and Value, Chicago, 1908), the γραφαί of Eus, A. Z. 
ν. 20, 6 were separate booklets of Johannine reminiscences of the life and 
words of Jesus, circulating in the churches, which were compiled, perhaps 
by Polykarp himself, into the Fourth gospel. It is more than probable that 
the gospel originated in homilies and addresses which had originally a separate 
existence, but the ordinary sense of γραφαί here (=Scriptures) is more relevant 
to the context, 


THE IRENAZUS TRADITION 609 


of the πρεσβύτεροι upon whom Irenzus and Florinus, like 
Papias, were dependent for their information about the eye- 
witnesses of Jesus. He was an older man than Papias, though 
he probably died before him. Consequently, if Irenzus is 
correct, his testimony to John the apostle is of first-rate 
importance. 

But, while any wholesale depreciation of Irenzus is uncritical 
(see Preuschen on Schwartz in Berliner Philol. Wochenschrift, 
1906, 101-105), and while his letter to Florinus is not to be 
brushed aside as a piece of unauthentic partisanship (Scholten, 
Der Apostel Johannes in Klein-Asien, 1872, pp. 63 f.), he must be 
held to have mistaken what Polykarp * said, and to have confused 
John the presbyter with John the apostle. Like Benjamin 
Franklin, he had ‘ever a pleasure in obtaining any little anec- 
dotes’ of his spiritual ancestors; but his memory, partly owing 
to his desire to safeguard the apostolic authority of the Fourth 
gospel, misled him here as elsewhere. Thus he confuses Peter 
and Jesus, as if Ac 5 applied to the latter (cp. ZU. xxxi. 1, 
p- 40), as well as James the son of Zebedee and the James of 
Ac 15=Gal 2 (adv. Haer. 111. 12. 15). He also infers (adv. 
Haer. ii. 22, TU. xxxi. 1. 42, 62 f.), either from the Fourth gospel 
2% 857) or from the Asiatic presbyters who claimed to represent 
John’s tradition, that Jesus did not die till the reign of Claudius 
(44. not till after a.p. 41). 


This inference has an important bearing on the whole subject. Whatever 
was the meaning f attached to the forty-six years of 27°—whether it represents 
the period between the initiation of Herod the Great’s building scheme 
(20 B.c.) and the date at which the scene of this discussion is laid (2.6. A.D. 
27-28), or alludes to Ezra’s temple (Dat. 2023-2024),—neither it nor the 
allusion in 857 (where Blass, Schwartz, Wellhausen follow &* SyrSi™ sah. in 
reading the more logical but less pungent éwpaxé ce, EOPAKECE for 
EOPAKEC) is responsible for the extraordinary exegetical blunder of 
Irenzeus or of his authorities, the Johannine presbyters, that from twelve 
to twenty years elapsed between the baptism and the death of Jesus. If 
this tradition was picked up by Irenzeus from the book of Papias, it richly 
confirms the impression of uncritical credulity which the other traditions of 
this school or circle make upon the modern reader. Neither Papias nor his 


* Polykarp himself never calls the apostle John his teacher; indeed, he 
never alludes to him at all. 

¢ Later tradition took it literally (cp. the pseudo-Cyprianic De montibus 
Sina et Sion, 4), and Loisy (293) has recently revived the allegorical-literal 
interpretation. For the anti-Valentinian, anti-Lucan motive of the passage, 
see above, pp. 530, 581, and Bacon’s Fourth Gospel (pp. 394 f.). 


39 


610 THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


informants can have had any accurate acquaintance with the John whom they 
claim as their apostolic authority. Their traditions are simply fantastic 
inferences drawn from the Johannine literature itself; whether Papias was 
primarily responsible for their circulation or not, they could never have come 
from a disciple who had been a member of the twelve (cp. Schwartz, pp. 7 f. ; 
Clemen in 4/7. ix. 661-663, and Corssen in ZVW., 1901, 202-227). 
Similarly, anything else Irenzeus quotes from the presbyters who are claimed 
to have been in touch with the apostle John, is of a singularly unapostolic 
character; not only this tradition that Jesus died when he was in his e/as 
senior, i.e. over forty or fifty, but the exegesis of Rev 13!8 (v. 30. 1), and the 
grotesque saying (p. 23) about the fruitful vines of the messianic era (v. 33. 
3), if they do not militate decisively against an apostolic source, certainly do 
not presuppose it. There is nothing in Irenzus’ tradition of the elders 
which points to any ultimate Johannine apostolic source, and a good deal 
which invalidates any such reference. 


Irenzeus was also mistaken, as Eusebius points out (/. Z. iii. 
39. 2), in making Papias a hearer of the apostle John. There is 
other evidence to show that he used discipulus apostolorum in a 
careless and loose sense. Once at least he inadvertently con- 
verts a presbyter gui audierat ab his qui apostolos uiderant (iv. 
27. 1) into a discipulus apostolorum (iv. 32. 1); and this significant 
instance, all the more significant that it is incidental, corroborates 
the conclusion that, in his reminiscences of his boyhood beside 
Polykarp, he mistook similarly the presbyter John for the apostle. 
The date of Polykarp’s death is uncertain, though ¢ 155 is approxi- 
mately accurate (cp. Corssen in ZVI, 1902, 61f.). Onany fair 
rendering of the chronological data, Irenzeus could not have 
been more than a boy when he heard or met him (/aer, iii. 
3+ 4, OV Kal ἡμεῖς ἑωράκαμεν ἐν TH πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ), and his 
letter to Florinus (1. Z. v. 20. 5f.) does not imply, even if it 
does not exclude, the supposition that his acquaintance with the 
aged bishop of Smyrna extended beyond the days of his early 
youth. We are justified, therefore, in refusing to set aside the 
Papias-traditions in favour of a claim which rests upon such 
precarious grounds and which is otherwise open to serious 
doubts. 


The force of this argument some critics attempt to turn, by pointing out 
the improbability of an error; Ireneeus must have many opportunities, in Asia 
Minor and Rome and Gaul, of acquainting himself with the facts; others, 
who were contemporaries of Polykarp, must have been alive ; and, therefore, 
Irenzus could not have written down an error which they would have instantly 
detected (cp. Drummond, pp. 3471. ; Sanday, Crétictsm of Fourth Gospel, 
6of.; Lepin, pp. 161f.; Gregory, Canon and Text, pp. 159f.). That 
lnenzeus had many links with the far past and opportunities of learning 


THE IRENAZUS TRADITION 611 


about it, may be admitted freely. But the bearing of all this upon the 
question of the accuracy of his memory is another matter. There were 
hundreds of his readers who must have known that Jesus was not crucified 
in the reign of Claudius, for example ; even the pagan historian Tacitus knew 
better. But this did not prevent Irenzeus from committing his blunder, and 
it does not entitle us to argue that, because so many contemporaries could 
have corrected him if he had been wrong, therefore he must have been right. 
The wholesale application of this kind of argument could be used to 
guarantee many of the most patent inaccuracies in ancient literature, classical 
and Christian. Asa protest against ultra-literary methods of handling early 
tradition it has some value, but it is only within narrow limits that it 
can operate legitimately as a positive criterion, and the Johannine witness 
of Irenzeus does not fall within these limits, 


Such confusion, owing to identity of names, was not unex- 
ampled. The case of the two Philips is a parallel. The Philip 
of Acts is one of ‘the seven’ (65), who is not one of the twelve 
(8540), but nevertheless is an evangelist who does active work in 
Samaria and elsewhere. His Greek name, his connection with 
the Hellenists (Ac 6!) in Jerusalem, and his efforts outside Judea, 
tally with the reference in Jn 1270-22, where, as elsewhere in the 
Fourth gospel, Philip the apostle (1.6. one of the synoptic twelve) 
seems to be meant. Does this entitle us to infer that the 
confusion between the two Philips began as early as the Fourth 
gospel (so Stolten, /P7., 1891, 150f.; Loisy, 30, 683f.; 
Holtzmann-Bauer on Jn 127%), or that the Philip of the Fourth 
gospel is an imaginative figure constructed out of the traditions 
about the evangelist (so, recently, Thoma, 764 f. ; Kreyenbihl, ii. 
347f.; Weizsdcker, and Schmiedel, Zz. 3700-3701)? A third 
alternative, that there was only one Philip, and that the early 
fathers were right in thinking of Philip as both deacon and 
apostle (so, recently, Purchas, Johannine Problems, 56-67), is 
negatived by the evidence of Ac 854° which assumes that Philip 
the evangelist had not the apostolic power (813) of laying hands 
on converts and imparting the Spirit. The significant fact that 
the evangelist, whom Luke met at Cesarea (Ac 21°), had θυγα- 
τέρες τέσσαρες παρθένοι προφητεύουσαι, is the starting-point of 
any discussion on this problem, unless Ac 21° is held, as I now 
think unlikely, to be an interpolation (cp. WWV7Z. 675). The evi- 
dence of Papias would be conclusive if only it were clear whether 
the Philip whom he mentions (see pp. 598, 603) was the apostle 
or the evangelist. In any case, he derived information at first- 
hand, not from this Philip but from the daughters of Philip (Eus. 


612 THE JOHANNINE TRADITICN 


ΤΠ. 2. iii. 39. 9-10, ὡς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁ Iarius yevopeves, where 
Harnack and Corssen* rightly understand χρόνους after αὐτοὺς). 
The probability is that his Philip was the apostle (of the Fourth 
gospel) ; but, even so, it does not follow that the daughters of 
Philip belonged to this Philip’s family.| Eusebius, who declares 
that they furnished Papias with some of his fantastic legends, 
assumes that they were; but this may be due to the fact that he 
confused both Philips, and it may be that only ¢ Philip the 
evangelist had daughters, that they prophesied at Hierapolis, 
and that they represent the figures to which the Montanists 
appealed, and about which the later stories gathered. Whether 
the Fourth gospel or Papias already confused the two Philips or 
not, Polykrates and Proklus did, and after them the later church. 
The apostle in the second-century traditions fell heir to the 
prophetic and ascetic daughters of his namesake (cp. Salmon, 
INT. 313-315 ; Wendt on Ac 21%, and McGiffert’s excellent note 
in his edition of Eusebius, on iii. 31). Polykrates, bishop of 
Ephesus (before the end of the second century), testifies that 
Philip the apostle, one of the great lights who had died in Asia, 
was buried in Hierapolis along with ‘his two aged virgin 
daughters,’ while “ἡ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι πολιτευ- 
σαμένη now rests at Ephesus’ (Eus. #. 22. ili, 31=v. 24). 
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 6. 52; Eus. H. 25. ili. 30. 1) 
not only reckons Philip § with Peter among the married apostles, 
but adds, ras θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκεν. In the dialogue of 
Gaius and Proklus (quoted in Eus. 4. £. iii. 31. 4), the four 
prophetic daughters of Philip are recorded to have been buried 
with their father at Hierapolis. Eusebius, who quotes all these 
passages, evidently identified the two Philips, as Tertullian had 
done before him, since (as is plain from the use of ἀπόστολους in 


* ZNW., 1902, 289-299 (‘die Tochter des Philippus’). 

+ The atmosphere of the marvellous in Ac 8 (cp. vv. 13. ®) is certainly 
‘*in entire harmony with the stories which Papias gleaned at a later date from 
the daughters of Philip ” (Purchas, 60-61). 

t It is just possible that Philip the apostle had also daughters, and that 
Clement of Alexandria preserves an independent tradition with regard te 
them ; but this leaves the confusion unaffected. The uncertainty of the text 
in Eusebius, as Schwartz points out (16f.), prevents us from laying too much 
stress on the variation in numbers between Polykrates and the other 
witnessses. 

§ He also declares (Strom. iii. 25) that the wcrds in Lk 9” were spokea 
to Philip. 


JOHN IN ASIA MINOR 613 


ili. 39. 10=Ac 1%) his description of Philip as τὸν ἀπόστολον 
(111. 39. 9) refers to the narrower, not to the wider (Zahn, 
Forschungen, vi. 162f.; Drummond, 226), sense of the title. 
Did Polykrates and Proklus the Montanist already share this 
confusion? In all likelihood they did.* The Asiatic tendency 
to trace church origins and traditions directly to members of the 
twelve must have led at an early period to the substitution of 
Philip the apostle for his namesake the evangelist. t 

§ 3. Zhe argument from silence.—Leaving aside, for the 
moment, the evidence for John the apostle’s early martyrdom, 
and confining ourselves to the tradition of his longevity and 
residence in Asia Minor, we find the statements of Irenzeus, who 
is the first and chief witness for this tradition, confronted by a 
significant silence on the part of previous writers. Not merely 
is the entire early Christian literature down to Irenaeus silent upon 
any sojourn of the apostle John in Asia Minor,{ but in one or 
two cases it is hardly possible that such a silence could have been 
preserved, had such a long residence been known to the writers. 
The silence of Clemens Romanus upon the alleged contemporary 
sojourn of John the apostle in Asia Minor is of minor import- 
ance ; there was no particular occasion for him to mention the 
apostle, and his evidence hardly tells either way.§ Much more 
significant is the silence of Ignatius, especially when it is admitted 

* Lightfoot (Colosstans, 45-47) and Drummond (pp. 226-227) especially 
hold that the Philip of Polykrates was the apostle. On the other side, cp. 
(in English) Selwyn’s Chréstian Prophets, 247 f. 

+ Schwartz (p. 17), who declines to follow Schmiedel in regarding the 
Fhilip of the Fourth gospel as imaginary, takes his own way: ‘‘ Der antike 
Heroencult treibt auf christlichen Boden neue Bliithen; die Kleinasiaten 
haben den Apostel Philippus mit seinen Toéchtern lange nach ihrem Tode, ja 
nach Papias, schwerlich vor 150, von Czsarea nach Hierapolis und Ephesus 
geschafft, wie in friiheren Zeiten sich die Stidte ihre Heroen in spiteren ihre 
Heiligen holten.” 

{The tradition was first examined and rejected by Vogel (1801), 
Reuterdahl (de fontzbus hist. eccl. Eusebtane, 1826), Liitzelberger (dze hirch. 
Trad. tiber den apost. Joh., 1840), and especially Keim (i. 211 f.). 

§ He implies, however, that the apostolic age is over (42, 44), and there 
would be a certain awkwardness in his retrospective allusions to the apostles 
if one of the latter was still alive; ‘‘I confess I find it hard to believe that 
one of the greatest apostles was still living, and residing in the very city from 
which Paul addressed his first letter to the Corinthians ” (Drummond, p. 216). 
This cuts on the whole against the hypothesis of the long-lived apostle in Asia 
Minor, and it would at least fit in with the early-martyrdom tradition ; but, 
at best, it is corroborative evidence, 


614 THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


that he knew the Fourth gospel (see pp. 577f.). Even in writing 
to the church of Ephesus, less than twenty years after John the 
apostle is supposed not only to have written the apocalypse and 
the Fourth gospel, but to have exercised ecclesiastical authority 
in the province, he never alludes to him.* Paul is the one 
apostle mentioned (ad. Eph. xii. 2, Παύλου συμμύσται). The 
description of the Ephesian Christians (xi. 2) as ot καὶ τοῖς 
ἀποστόλοις πάντοτε συνήνεσαν ἐν δυνάμει ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, would 
be incredibly vague if John the apostle had occupied the local 
position which later tradition assigned to him; and in view of the 
prestige which, on this hypothesis, he enjoyed as the author of 
the apocalypse, it is out of the question to turn the evidence from 
the silence of Ignatius by conjecturing that John’s reputation had 
not yet risen to such a height as would have justified Ignatius in 
mentioning him along with Paul. The argument from silence 
requires very careful handling, but in the present case it is quite 
valid. No serious argument can stand against the conclusion that 
while Ignatius, like Papias, may have known the Fourth gospel, he 
did not know of any residence of John the apostle, as its author, 
in Ephesus. Even Hegesippus does not appear to have known 
of John’s longevity in Asia Minor; in describing the latter’s 
Ephesian career, Eusebius goes away from Hegesippus to 6 τῶν 
map ἡμῖν ἀρχαίων λόγος (1. £. iii. 20. 9), which he would hardly 
have done if Hegesippus, who lay before him, had continued the 
tale in question. In short, the silence of Clemens Romanus, 
Ignatius, and Hegesippus cannot fairly be called accidental; no 
satisfactory explanation of it is forthcoming, except the admission 
that none of them knew of John the apostle as a resident 
authority and author in Asia Minor towards the close of the first 
century. ᾿ The John of Asia Minor at this period (cp. in addition 
to the authorities already cited, von Dobschiitz’s Probleme, οὐ f.) 
is John the presbyter, a Jewish Christian disciple, originally a 
Jerusalemite, who taught and ruled with strictness in the Jocal 
churches. His authority and influence created a ‘ Johannine’ 
school or circle. He wrote the apocalypse (see pp. 513 f.), and 
two notes of his (see pp. 475 f.) have survived, all written before 
the year 96 a.p. Later on, the church looked back to see in 
him, however, and in his earlier apostolic namesake, not two 
stars but one. { 


* “©Some personal reference to St. John would have been natural in 
writing to the church at Ephesus” (GHD. i. 166). 


CONFUSION OF TWO JOHNS 615 


84. Growth of the Johannine tradition.—The first clue to 
the mazes of this later Johannine tradition lies in the strong 
tendency, felt as soon as the canon began to be formed, to 
connect any gospel or epistle with the apostles, directly or 
indirectly. The apocalypse was probably the first of the 
“Johannine” writings to be associated with the name of the 
apostle. It claimed to be written by a certain John, and the 
casual remark of Justin, only half a century after its composition, 
shows how soon and how naturally the primitive tradition, even 
in Ephesus, had begun to substitute John the apostle for his 
namesake the presbyter. Since the apocalypse and the Fourth 
gospel came from the same school, and since their language had 
certain resemblances, it was natural that the uncritical piety of 
the second century should extend the apostolic authorship to the 
gospel as well, especially if its final edition had paved the way 
for this view of its origin; the first ep'stle naturally followed in 
the wake of the gospel, while the second and third epistles were 
drawn after the apocalypse or the larger epistle. Once the 
Domitianic date of the apocalypse was granted,—and this is 
practically unchallenged during the second century,—the identi- 
fication of John the seer with John the apostle went on apace, to 
cover the rest of the anonymous Johannine writings. His earlier 
sufferings did not amount to a red martyrdom ; he was banished 
by Domitian to Patmos, where he composed the apocalypse ‘de 
statu ecclesiz’ (Ps.-Aug. Serm. clxix. 2, Ps.-Isidore, Jerome, 
Primas. = metallo damnatus) ; after Domitian’s death he returned 
to Asia Minor under Nerva, where he wrote the Fourth gospel 
against Cerinthus ; finally (68 years after the death of Jesus ac- 
cording to Jerome, quoting “historia ecclesiastica” ; 70 years, Ps.- 
Isid.), he survived till Trajan’s reign. The last item in the tradition 
is commonly admitted to be more or less an inference. “We 
may observe that the tradition that John survived till the time of 
Trajan can hardly claim the same degree of certainty as that of 
his residence in Asia” (Drummond, p. 216). 

These deductions or inductions, under the influence of the 
apostolising tendency, would not have developed so rapidly, 
however, had there not been a tendency to confuse John the 
apostle and John the presbyter. This error, due to or fostered 
by the mistake of Irenzeus, threw practically the whole of the 
subsequent tradition out of focus. When all the ecclesiastical 
interests were running so strongly in this direction through an 


616 THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


age which was primarily interested in tradition for the sake of 
its utility in safeguarding the canonical authority of the New 
Testament writings and the apostolic authority of the twelve, it 
becomes less surprising that Irenzeus ignored the casual remark 
of Papias about John’s martyrdom, or that Eusebius in a later 
generation passed over it, perhaps as one of the παράδοξα or 
μυθικώτερα which he professed to find in the writings of the 
worthy bishop of Hierapolis. The remarkable thing really is 
that any traces of the early martyrdom should have been pre- 
served at all. The early criticisms passed on the Fourth 
gospel for its discrepancies with the synoptic narrative led to the 
legends of its composition after them as a “spiritual gospel,” 
written to supplement them (Schwartz, 44 f.), and this helps to 
explain how the tradition of John’s early martyrdom * faded 
almost entirely from the church before that rival tradition of 
his long life in Ephesus, which made room for the composition 
of his gospel subsequent to the synoptists, by taking over item 
after item from the traditions of the presbyter. For the 
rise and growth of the second-century Christian tradition of 
the Ephesian John cannot be explained by recourse to fantasy 
and imagination. To account for the tradition, a definite 
historical figure must be assumed, one who lived to a great age 
in Asia Minor, and became an authority there, a John whose 
name and prestige counted highly in Asiatic circles. Thus, 
among the great lights who had fallen asleep in Asia, Polykrates 
numbers not only Philip but also Ἰωάννης, 6 ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ 
κυρίου ἀναπεσών, ὃς ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκὼς καὶ μάρτυς 
καὶ διδάσκαλος (Eus. A. 25. iii. 31. 3, v. 24. 2). The πέταλον 
phrase, unless it is an unauthentic interpolation (cp. Heinichen’s 
note and Liicke, 20 f.), is either due to the fanciful play of 
legend—Epiphanius (Aaer. xxix. lxxviii., following Hegesippus ἢ) 
decorates James also with it—or else furnishes a proof that the 
John in question had belonged to the sacerdotal order in Jeru- 


* One vague and confused echo of it may be heard in the occasional 
tradition that the apocalypse (see above, p. 505) was written very early. The 
remark of Epiphanius (li. 33: τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου mpd κοιμήσεως αὐτοῦ προ- 
φητεύσαντος ἐν χρόνοις Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος καὶ ἀνωτέρω [ἀνωτάτω, MSS], ὅτε εἰς 
τὴν Πάτμον νῆσον ὑπῆρχεν) is a piece of evidence which is all the more striking 
since the Domitianic tradition was well known by that period. Schwartz (of. 
cit, 29f., 39f.) suggests that this Claudius-tradition may explain the well- 
known objection of Gaius, that when the apocalypse was written (2.6. in fourth 
year of Claudius), there was no Christian church at Thyatira, 


CONFUSION OF TWO JOHNS 617 


salem. In any case it is as incompatible with John the apostle 
as the title * διδάσκαλος, which could hardly have been used of 
an apostle. Polykrates, indeed, calls Philip an apostle, but not 
John, and as he uses μάρτυς immediately afterwards of Polykarp, 
Thraseas, and Sagaris, it is probably employed here in the 
light of Apoc 1% Thus all the indications point to John 
the presbyter, who is further identified with the beloved disciple 
of the Fourth gospel. If this identification is right, it tallies 
with the hypothesis of Delff,t Harnack, and Bousset. If it 
is wrong, it is a fresh witness to the fusion of John the presbyter 
with John the apostle (1.6. as the bosom-disciple, and perhaps 
as μάρτυς in the tragic sense). Since Polykrates in all like- 
hhood meant to describe John the apostle, the confusion is 
similar to that in the case of Philip whom he has just mentioned. 
The really doubtful point is to determine how far the last chapter 
of the Fourth gospel contributed to this result. Was this 
appendix (or, at any rate, 21725) a deliberate attempt by the 
Ephesian circle to claim for John the presbyter a gospel of John 
the beloved apostle, or vice versa? Or was the identification of 
the two men due to the misreading of the text by a later age? 
In short, does the appendix merely witness to a fusion already 
present, or was it one of the primary sources of the fusion? 
Either theory is tenable, and it depends upon the view taken of 
the gospel’s aim and original character which falls to be adopted. 
The former seems to me slightly preferable, but here as elsewhere 
in the literary criticism of the Fourth gospel one has to jump for 
conclusions,—if one is eager for them,—and that is usually to 
iand in a bog of confusion. 


(a) The probability of Irenzeus having confused the son of Zebedee with 
the presbyter John depends not only upon the fact that the latter really 
existed,—a fact which it should be no longer necessary to prove,—but on the 
presbyter’s authority and residence in Asia Minor. The latter point is still 
disputed, on the ground that Papias does not expressly state it; and some 
critics, who admit the existence of the presbyter John, place him not in Asia 
Minor but in Syria or Palestine, partly on the grounds of supposed internal 
evidence drawn from the book of Revelation, partly because he is identified 
with some former priest called John (e.g. that of Ac 4°, cp. Ac 67), partly 
because thereby the Judean tradition of the Fourth gospel is accounted for 

* It is a different thing when Polykarp is called διδάσκαλος ἀποστολικὸς 
καὶ προφητικός (Mart. Polyk. 16). 

+ Tohn (the priest of Ac 4°?), a man of priestly rank, composed the Fourth 
gospel before the fall of Jerusalem (SX., 1892, 83f.). See above, p. 566. 


618 THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 


(sorecently A. Meyer and Zurhellen). But when the apocalypse is assigned to 
John the presbyter, his Asiatic connection follows. There is certainly nothing 
in Papias to show that John was an Asiatic, or that he had even met him. 
Still, though μαθηταί was the earliest title assumed by the Christian Jews of 
Palestine, it does not follow that its application to Aristion and John the 
presbyter denotes their Palestinian /ocus, and the Ephesian /ocus of the 
Fourth gospel in its present form is indicated, not only by the external 
evidence of tradition, but by converging lines of internal evidence, ¢.g. the 
fact that it springs from the same circle or school as the apocalypse (itself an 
undoubtedly Asiatic document), the presence of the Ephesian Logos ideas, 
and of the controversy with the Baptist’s followers. 

(4) If the Fourth gospel was ranked by Papias as a standard for measuring 
the others (see above, p. 187), why did not Eusebius record his evidence? 
Was it because (Schwartz, 23 f.) the historian could not agree with the bishop’s 
tradition of the origin of the gospel as prior to Luke and Mark? Eusebius, 
on this hypothesis, would pass over the testimony of Papias because the latter, 
holding the early martyrdom of John, did not maintain the Ephesian 
residence and longevity of the apostle which, since Irenzus and Clement, 
had become the dominant belief of the church. If so, this would also account 
for the puzzling failure of Irenzeus to employ such witness from Papias. 
The acquaintance of the latter with the Fourth gospel reappears in a curious 
argumentum of Codex Vatic. Alex. (quoted and discussed by Lightfoot, 
Essays on Supern. Relig. p. 210, and Burkitt, Two Lectt. on Gospels, 1901, 
Appendix ii.): euangelium Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab 
Johanne adhuc in corpore constituto, sicut Papias nomine Hierapolitanus, 
discipulus Johannis carus, in exotericis—id est in extremis [#.¢. externis or 
extraneis] quinque libris retulit. This argumentum is obviously translated 
from the Greek, and its origin is pre-Hieronymian. It seems to cite Papias 
as the authority for a theory of the Fourth gospel’s origin which is allied to 
that of the Muratorian canon ; both probably go back to the Leucian Acta, or 
to an independent tradition playing on Jn 214%, The paragraph in the 
Muratorian canon, though mutilated or abbreviated, gives a clear sense: 
Cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit: conieiunate mihi hodie 
triduum, et quid cuique fuerit reuelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus. Eadem 
nocte reuelatum Andrez ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes 
suo nomine cuncta describeret (‘‘when his fellow-disciples and bishops 
exhorted him [to write a gospel-narrative ἢ], he said: Fast with me for three 
days from to-day [cp. Ac 137, Tert. de seiun. 6) and let us tell one another 
what may be revealed to any one of us. That very night it was revealed to 
Andrew, one of the apostles, that John was to narrate all in his own name, 
while they were all to revise (or collate) it [ἀναγινωσκόντων πάντων]. If 
the words ef epzscopis were deleted, as a mere accommodation to the popular 
legend (so Schwartz), it would be possible to regard this paragraph as a claim 
for the collective and catholic authority of the twelve behind the gospel of 
John, or at least for the authority of a certain circle of disciples who were 
able personally to guarantee traditions of Jesus. The evolution of a tradition 
like the ‘Johannine’ is never entirely deliberate and literary ; motives of 
which men are seldom conscious combine to forward a tendency, once it has 
set in. Still, it throws up written statements which in their turn became 


CONFUSION OF TWO JOHNS 619 


factors in the process of ecclesiastical definition or pious fancy. The naive 
testimony of the Muratorian canon belongs to this class, though intrinsically 
it is no more than a legendary amplification of Jn 2133. 35, interpreted in the 
light of the rising claim for the apostolic authorship of a gospel which 
is attributed to special inspiration and possibly credited, as the context 
implies, with completeness no less than chronological ordes. 


Pn cong Ὁ δας 


> ' pe ys { he NO pre, Asivg 
Pia ‘ TOL! NG. wat 9 aS Εν) Wry ον ᾿ ‘va oF ko ae Th 
AE Jad af " AY, ᾿ AP Teh eae 
ie pret gy’ pends ἘΜ as Cray Ww? ὄν be) ne ee ἥ 
ν ν ot ἐν. he aD πω. ἐν Ray A HG Ouse NE) Ae Pe πὰ 
ἐν... ] : j : ὲ ad vn ἮΝ, ὲ Ay at fy, ἌΝ δ 
is wa é A uy Vit Ret ys er ae | AS ἀμ Lal pit OP mar an «hae Ain 
SMEAR ASAP IMR. ARATE ΣΝ A 
᾿ . Vie Ay gat ) fe A ἍΝ } Ὁ 
ϊ ὶ ᾿ 
4 . 
! ‘ } wie 
f at 
ω a 4 ) ey! 
ὺ ὺ Py 
i ‘ oy 
" ᾿ * 
’ 
» τ 
i “ 4 , , 
ἢ ΠῚ] ‘ y 
f ͵ ͵ 
‘ AL, ass 
rar 
" Ἶ ἵ ῃ ‘ 
vi ‘ , ὃ i ii ' ὶ 
; i 4 Wy 
| a ' 
ΤΙ ay eh : 
Vi ν᾿ ‘ \ 
‘ Ais 
, / ᾿ ) eu ἱ { 
iJ ἢ ἂ Υ 
my 
κι MW ‘ 
fad " , ᾽ J 
λ waa Ny Ἷ I 
" i 
a eed ; ye 7 ς i 
‘ ’ Ὗ f er) 
; fi f i ele 
‘ ow ἮΝ 
Ἷ i 
i ' ἵ ᾿ i 
. J Ν 
‘ ‘ : ; ͵ [ΠῚ Ὶ ΄ 
« ‘ ‘ a 
᾿ > 
i 
ἡ a? ι « 
oe . 
Υ ͵ ν y « A, 
᾿ ἀν ᾿ 
Ἷ “ Ἶ 
. ay ἢ 
“ Le) ee oy 244 " 
͵ ἀν | 
ἔν 
. > » 
’ y Ἷ 7 
ἣ ""Υὺν (oe 
᾽ 7 ἽΝ αν ὦ» v4 7 
a7 ἢ A} " 
a4 ”~ ἕν ; 
νὰ! 
‘ 
woe j } ‘ 
4 | » ͵" ‘ 
χὰ A " ΤΩΝ ἡ 
᾽ν } ΟΣ: | f ‘ i 


INDEX 


— 


(4) SUBJECTS AND REFERENCES. 


ABRAHAM, 252, 448. 

Acts, apocryphal, 129, 314, 
etc. 

Acts, canonical position, 13f. ; and 
Josephus, 30f.; 42, 66f., 91f., 
168f., 230, 283-314; and First 
Peter, 335 ; and Ephesians, 384. 

Acts of John, 137, 588, 607 f. 

Aenon, 548. 

Aeschylus, 2 f. 

Ahikar, 34f., 112, 360. 

Akiba, 26, 458, 460, 587. 

Alexandrians, epistle to, 432. 

Allegory, 28, 248, 363, 451, ete. 

Alogi, the, 498f., 531, 532, 596. 

Amphilochius, 431. 

Ancyra, 97 f. 

Andrew, 564, 571, 618. 

Angels, 152f. 

Antioch, 311. 

Apocalypse of Elijah, 31. 

Apocalypse of John, 33, 77 f., 412- 
413, 480, 481, 483 f., 615. 

Apocalypse of Peter, 31, 224, 366f. 

Apocalypse, the synoptic, 207 f. 

Apocryphal epistles (of Paul), 129 f., 
161 


417, 


Apollos, 293, 438 f., 517. 

Aramaic, 181f., 188f., 228, 237, 
435. 

Aristides, 211. 

Ariston (Aristion), 241f,, 441, 590f. 

Aristotle, 39, 45, 56, 388, 427, 581. 

Asia Minor, 57, 327, 601, 613 f., 
etc. 

Assumptio Mosis, 32, 347. 

Austen, Jane, 37. 

‘ Authenticity,’ 62. 

Autographs of NT, 52. 


Babylon, 327f., 476. 
Balaam, 361. 


ότι 


Barkokba, 581. 

Barnabas, ΟἹ, 343, 437 f. 
Basilides, 187f., 581, 599. 
Berea, 66f., 439f., 448. 
Bethany, 548, 550. 
Bethsaida, 549. 

Bezze, Codex, 14f., 309 f. 
Bryce, 280. 

Buddhism, 33, 29%, 36%. 
Burke, 148. 

Byron, 128, 129. 


Cable, G. W., 464. 

Ceesarea, 106, 158f., 169, 403f., 
441, 451. 

Calendars, early Christian, 605 f. 

Caligula, 81. 

Canon, NT, relation to historical 
criticism, 4f., 8f.; order of books 
hip Bie Be 

Catalogus Mommsenianus, 13 f., 17. 

‘ Catholic’ epistles, 18, 317 f. 

Cedron, 550. 

Celsus, 107, 582. 

Cerinthus, 499, 531, 586£ 

Chemnitz, 20. 

Christian, name of, 323 f. 

Chronology of Paul, 62-63, grt, 
603. 

Chrysostom, 314, 432. 

Cicero, 49, 51f., 55f. 

Clement of Rome, 9 114f., 129, 
148, 418f., 438, 467, 613, etc. 

Coleridge, 159, 523. 

Colossians, epistle to, 149f., 170, 
3751. 

Commentaries on Catholic epistles, 
318. 

Commentaries on NT, 21. 

Commentaries on Paul’s epistles, 58- 


59. 
Compilation, 40, 462, 488 f. 


622 


Copyists, errors of, 52-53, 496, 552, 
etc. 

Corinth, epistles to, 104 f. 

Cornutus, 523. 

Crete, 400 f., 405. 

Crucifixion, date of, 544f. 


Daniel, 508. 

Demas, 478. 

Demosthenes, 41 f., 47, 75» 
176. 

Dialogue, 45 f., 562. 

Diatribé, 46 f. 

Dionysius of Alexandria, 499 f. 

Diotrephes, 476 f. 

Doketism, 586 f., 588. 

Domitian, 341, 356, 503f., 507. 


123, 


Ecclesiasticus, 25 f., 458 f. 

Editing, 18f., 121f., 139f., 496. 

Eldad and Modad, book of, 32, 371, 
467. 

Ennius, 366. 

Enoch, book of, 25, 346 f., 352. 

Enoch, Slavonic, 25, 497, 577- 

Ephesians, epistle to, 159f., 337f., 
373f., 413. 

Ephesus, 110, 136f.; 413, 507, etc. 

‘¢Epichristian,” 19. 

Epictetus, 46f., 113. 

Epimenides, 35, 401 f. 

Epiphanius, 505, 616, etc. 

Epistle, literary form and function of, 
42, 47 f., 317. 


Florilegia, 23f., 194, 230f., 330, 
453, etc. 

Florinus, 608 f. 

Fourth gospel, and book of Wisdom, 
27 ; and Josephus, 29; 15, 33, 43, 
46, 187, 193, 226; and Luke, 
274, 534f.; 385 ; and Apocalypse, 
499f., 515 f.; and Hebrews, 522 f.; 
and First Epistle of John, 589 f. ; 
596, etc. 

Francis of Assisi, 183, 464. 


Gabbatha, 550. 

Gaius, 498 f., 532. 

Galatians, epistle to, 83 f. ; and First 
Peter, 330. 

Galilee, in Jerusalem, 254-255. 

Glaukias, 188, 331. 

Glosses, 36f., 89f., 113f., 125f., 
142f., 156, 167, 171, 233f., 275f., 
5526. 

Gnosticism, 22, 77, 353f., 361f., 
408 f., 419 f., 531, 564, 585 f. 


INDEX 


Gospels, canonical order of, 14f., 
582; origin, 19 f., 214f.; struc- 
ture, 22f., 38, 45 f., 55 f. ; apocry- 
phal, 182, 204, 209f. 

Gregory of Nyssa, 607. 


Harmonizing, textual, 206, 253, etc. 

Hebrews, epistle to, 17, 25, 159, 
320, 385, 420f.; and Fourth 
gospel, 522 f. 

Hebrews, gospel of, 259, 260-261, 


555. 

Herakleon, 606. 

Hermas, 467. 

Hippolytus, 408 f. 

Historiography, 183. 

Homeric criticism, 36 f. 

Homerisms, 360. 

Homilies, 47, 54f., 315f., 428f., 
462f., 583 f., 608. 


Ignatius, 9, 115, 148, 154, 211f., 
394, 443f., 450, 497, (and Fourth 
gospel) 577f., 595, (and John) 
13 


Imperial cultus, 508 f. 

Interpolations, 369f., 
under Glosses). 

Introduction, definition of, 3f.; 
history of NT, 5f.; for literature 
of, see pp. XXXVi—Xxxvili. 

Trenzeus, 14f., 211 f., 498; on John, 
608 f. 


462f. (see 


James, epistle of, and Testament of 
Job, 221. ; 456f. 

Jerome, 12, 33, 121, 164, 242, 364, 
366, 438, 472, 479. 

Jerusalem, Paul’s visits to, 91f., 
308 f. 

Jesus, brothers of, 356, 567. 

Job, Testament of, 32 f. 

John the apostle, 509f., 558f., 565, 
574f., 602 f. 

John the Baptist, 268, 530, 537, 

605 f. 


05 f. 
John the presbyter, 475f., 479f., 
f. 


513 f. 

John, the First epistle of, 17, 481, 
582 f. 

John, the Second and Third epistles 
of, 17, 51, 475 f., 481. 

John Mark, and First Peter, 328 f. ; 
and Ur-Markus, 228 f. ; and Apoc- 
alypse, 489f., 512; and Fourth 
gospel, 566, 603. 

Josephus, 28 f., 44, 311 f., 333, 
524. 


INDEX 


Judas, epistle of, 32, 344f. 

Judas Iskariot, 34-35. 

Judith, book of, 32. 

Julius Africanus, 88. 

Junilius, 5. 

Justin Martyr, 210, 372, 431, 498, 
562; and Fourth gospel, 579f. ; 
and First John, 595 f. 

Justus Barsabbas, 240, 608. 


Laodicea, epistle to, 159f., 390f. 

Latinisms, 236 f. 

Logia, 19, 422, 459, etc. 

Logos, the, 156-157, 384, 427, 
519f., 578, 591. 

Lucian, 47, 188, 302 f. 

Lucretius, 37, 571. 

Luke, author and physician, 298f., 
414, 4351. 

Luke, gospel of; and Josephus, 
201-150 375 105; 214, 201  ; and 
Fourth gospel, 274, 534f.; and 
Ephesians, 383 f.; qgorf.; and 
James, 466. 

LXX, see Old Testament, 
Quotations from OT. 


and 


Maccabees, Second, 32, 214, 415. 

Magnificat, the, 271-272. 

Marcion, 16f., 102f., 139f., 320, 
390, 419 f., 432, etc. 

Mark, gospel of, 204f., 212, 217f., 
246 f., 534, 540f. 

Marriage, 411. 

Matthew, gospel of, 44, 206f., 213, 
243 f., 534. 

Medical language, 263 f., 297 f. 

Melchizedek, 27, 431, 524. 

Midrashic elements, 23, 204, 215, 
249 f., 290-291, 354, 361, 438, 


55°. 
Miracles, 528f., 538f., 560. 
Monarchian prologues, 15 f., 574. 
Montanism, 394, 476, 497 f., 532. 
Muratorian Canon, 13f., 26, 191, 
282, 314, 337, 478f, 498, 598, 
607, 618 f. 


Naassenes, 408 f. 
Nathanael, 564 f. 
“New Testament,’ 8f. 
Nikolaitans, 354 f. 


Old Testament, 21 f., 231, 590f. 

Ophites, 408 f. 

Oral tradition, 180f., 216. 

Origen, 15, 139f., 433f., 467 f., 548, 
508, 595, 604. 


623 


Papias, 185f., 497, 595; on John 
the presbyter, 597 f. ; on John the 
apostle, 603 f. ; and Fourth gospel, 
577, 618 f. 

‘ Parsimony,’ Luke’s law of, 281. 

Paul, 26, 51, 60f., 256, 416f., 428, 
433, 507, 565. 

Paulinism, 71 f., 235f., 301f., 330f., 
341, 465, 522. 

Persecution, 323 f., 453 f., 
606. 


Peter, First, 318f.; and Second 
Peter, 364f.; and Ephesians, 
381 f.; and Hebrews, 320, 440; 
and Pastorals, 415. 

Peter, Second; and Josephus, 28- 
29; and Judas, 348f.; 358f. 

Peter, the gospel of, 239, 
580, etc. 

Ehilemons epistle to, 17, 124, 161- 
165. 

Philip, 291 f., 440, 564, 571, 611 f. 

Philip Sidetes, 185, 604. 

Philippians, epistle to, 165 f. 

Philo, 26, 27f., 361, 448, 459, 460, 
520f., 523 ἴ, 

Pheebe, 137. 

Pindar, 519. 

Plato, 216. 

Poimandres, 172, 531. 

Polybius, 264. 

Polykarp, 148, 174 f., 335 f., 608 f. 

Polykrates, 616 f. 

Priscilla, 441 f. 

Priscillian, 586. 

Prison-epistles, 


504, 


367, 


106, 158 f., 169, 
451. 
Pseudonymity, 4of., 342f., 365f., 


415 f., 512f. 


°Q,’ 183, 194f., 221. 
Quincey, de, 19. 
Quintilian, 51, 56, 366, ete. 
Quixote, Don, 181. 


Quotations from OT, 23f., 194, 
231, 258. 

Reading, 47, 53f., 386, 401. 

Resurrection-stories, 254f., 275f., 


536, 573f. 

Rhythm, 55f., 80, 88f., 167, 278, 
360. 

Romans, epistle to, 17, 130-149; 
and First Peter, 330; and Hebrew, 


453. 
Secretaries, 50 ἔ., 366, etc. 


| Seneca, 49, 51. 


624 


Shakespeare, 36, 491, 551. 

Sidney’s Arcadia, 238. 

Sidon, 34, 223. 

Siloam, 549. 

Silvanus, 80f., 296, 331 f., 439. 

Solomon, Odes of, 58, 568. 

Son of man, 231, 234. 

Spain, Paul’s visit to, 61, 314, 417. 

Speeches, 42f., 305 f. 

Stoicism, 113, 525, 528. 

Supper, the Lord’s, 275, 389, 454 f., 
536, 545 f. 

Sychar, 548 f. 

Synchronisms, 3, 507, 581. 

Synoptic gospels, 45 f., 177 f., 533 f. 


Tacitus, 41 f., 324, 595, 611. 

Tatian, 183 f., 460, 557 f. 

Teachers, 460. 

Temple, fall of Jewish, 3, 208, 444 f., 
452, 581 ἢ 

Temptation-narratives, 33, 34, 266. 

Tertius, 50, 138. 

Tertullian, 15, 52, 60-61, 115, 352, 
365, 366, 390f. — 

Testaments of Patriarchs, 172, 221, 
349; 410. 

Themison, 18. 

Theophilus of Antioch, 372, 419. 

Thessalonians, epistles to, 51, 64 f. 

Thomas, 564. 


INDEX 


Thucydides, 41, 43, 496. 

Tiberias, sea of, 549. 

Timotheus, 67f., 74, 1§§f., 163 
167, 296, 413. 

Timotheus, epistles to, 348, 384, 
395 f. 

Titus, Ps 109 f., 296, 400f., 409, 
412. 

Titus, epistle to, 321, 305 £ 

Tobit, book of, 32, 34. 

Tradition, 4 f. 

Translations, 44, 71, 435- 

Transposition, 39f., 80f., 125f., 
128, 132, 135f., 311, 370, 4orf., 
463, 496, 552f. 

Tiibingen school, 6, 235, 341, 507. 


Ur-Markus, 183, 191 f., 220f. 


Valentinians, 149, 171, 581, 587 f. 

Vergil, 36, 38, 475, 571. 

Virgin-birth, 211, 249f., 259, 266f., 
586. 


We-journal in Acts, 294 f. 

iro book of, 26f., 332, 439, 
458 1. 

Wisdom-literature, 25 f., 33 f£, 457 f., 

Women, letters to, 164. 


Zacchzeus, 564 f. 


(8) AUTHORS AND AUTHORITIES. 


Abbot, Ezra, 579. 

Abbott, E. A., 45, 178, 180f., 193, 
220, 257, 491, 494, 524, 534, 549, 
590, 600. 

Abrahams, 24, 547. 

Adeny, 26. 

Albani, 407, 423. 

Albrecht, 103. 

Alford, 439, 584. 

Allen, W. C., 199f., 214, 542. 

Amling, 163. 

Andresen, 596. 

Anwyl, 97. 

Arnauld, 345. 

Arnold, F. C., 324f. 

Arnold, Matthew, 547, 563, 589. 

Augustine, 217, 465, 519. 


Bacon, B. W., 67, 175, 221, 224f., | 


235 f., 241, 249, 291, 296, 357; 
382, 404, 467, 480, 490f., 536, 
552f., 566 f., Goof. 


Badham, 183, 286, 602 ἔ, 

Bahusen, 400. 

Baldensperger, 530. 

Baljon, 107, 134, 392, ete 

Barnes, A. S., 198. 

Barns, T., 345, 357. 

Baronius, 66. 

Barth, 199, 326, 462, 491, ete. 

Bartlet, V., 62, 103, 279. 

Batiffol, 290. 

Bauer, B., 142, etc. 

Baur, 6f., 72-73, 75, 81, 145, 171, 
395, 427, ete. 

Beck, 263. 

Becker, 554. 

Belser, 99, 212 f., 240, 353, 599, εἰς. 

Bengel, 581, 584. 

Bentley, 41, 89, 307. 

Bernard, J. H., 605. 

Bernays, 39. 

Bertholdt, 369, 559, ete 

Bertling, 554- 


INDEX 


Bertrand, 285, 407. 

Beyschlag, 147, 251 f. 

Bigg, 321, 353, 362, 372. 

Birks, 213. 

Bischoff, 326, 463. 

Blair, J. F., 266, 273, 276. 

Blakiston, 275. 

Blass, 30, 57, 88f., 99, 216, 218, 
310f., 425, 571. 

Bleek, 398. 

Bois, 402 f., 463. 

Bonkamp, 182. 

Bornemann, 63, 73. 

Bottger, 73, 404. 

Bourquin, 396f. 

Bousset, 203, 561 f. 

Bovon, 425. 

Box, 249 f., 545. 

Bretschneider, 530, 531, 540, 548. 

Briggs, 181, 206, 267, 277, 490, 545, 


559. 

Bruce, 280, 435, 528. 

Briickner, M., 221. 

Briickner, W., 471, 489. 

Bruston, 252, 489 f., 503. 

Biichel, 445. 

Buisson, du, 229. 

Burkitt, 192, 194, 196, 250f., 258, 
271, 347. 

Burton, 277, 554. 


Calvin, 102, 366, 402, 594. 
Chajes, 230, 254. 

Chapman, 14, 16, 211, 440. 
Charles, 25, 35 f., 78. 

Chase, 93, 271, 336, 342, 352, 360. 
Chastand, 554, 571, 572, 577- 
Chwolson, 545 f. 

Clemen, 63, 114, 208, 404, etc. 
Cludius, 342, 585. 

Cone, 562f. 

Conrady, 209 f. 

Conybeare, 241, 253 f., 499. 
Cornely, 62. 

Corssen, 141, 189, 458, 556. 
Cramer, 107, 311, 343. 
Creighton, 568. 

Cross, J. A., 311 f. 

Curtius, 43, 144. 


Dalman, 267. 

Davidson, A. B., 427, 444, 446, 452. 

Davidson, S., 7, etc. 

Davies, J. LI., 123 f., 375, 3923. 

Deissmann, 22, 50, 169, 459. 

Delff, 518, 553 f., 559f., 566f., 617. 

Denney, 11, 155, 156f., 224, 275, 
331, 412, 587. 


40 


Derenbourg, 336. 

Deutsch, 444. 

Dibelius, F., 424, 438. 

Dibelius, M., 155, 229. 

Dietze, 578. 

Dobschiitz, von, 61, 291, 380, 585, 
614, etc. 

Dods, M., 576. 

Driseke, 582. 

Drummond, J., 125, 135, 546, 601, 
613, εἰς. 


Eck, 569. 

Eichhorn, 332. 

Erasmus, 333, 472, 512. 

Erbes, C., 138, 169, 328, 572. 

Ewald, 27, 155f., 173, 175f., 286, 
395, 403. 

Ewald, P., 229, 392, 402. 


Falconer, R. A., 352, 368, 

Farquhar, 5.57. 

Farrar, 28, 63, 584. 

Faye, E. de, 489. 

Feine, 88, 145, 276, 462, ete. 

Fiebig, 215. 

Field, 423, 455- 

Findlay, G. G., 63, 80, 113, 477, 
557, 584. 

Forbes, 307, 511, etc. 

Fries, 531, 556. 

Fiirrer, 547 f. 


Gardner, P., 183, 303, 4558. 
Garvie, 573. 

Gercke, 36, etc. 

Gerhard, G. A., 48. 
Gifford, E. H., 138. 
Gilbert, G. H., 63, ete. 
Glover, T. R., 87. 

Godet, 532, 603. 

Goguel, 293, 412, 592. 
Goltz, von der, 578. 
Goodspeed, E. J., 239. 
Gould, E. P., 354, 470 
Grafe, 26, 146. 

Gregory, C. R., 552, 586, et@. 
Grill, 33, 253, 590. 
Grotius, 357, 370, 514 
Gudemann, 41. 

Gunkel, 492 f. 

Gutjahr, 604 f. 

Gwynn, 576, ete. 


Hicker, 268. 
Hadley, 474. 
Hagge, 113f 
Hahn, 236. 


626 


Halcombe, 581 f. 

Halévy, 34-35, 245, 250, 259, 270, 
307, 555- 4 

Halmel, 106, 1261. 

Handmann, 260 f. 

Harman, 426. 

Harnack, 93, 115, 194f., 200, 205, 
216, 268 f., 275, 280 f.; 287 ἢ; 
00; 302/85 307 ἢ, 3215; 227 te 
335 f., 342 f., 357f., 398, 441, 478, 
etc 


Harris, J. Rendel, 24f., 67, 482. 

Hart, J. H. A., 343. 

Haupt, E., 351-352. 

Hausrath, 121, 132 f., 164, 403, 
512. 

Haussleiter, 571, 601. 

Hawkins, Sir J. C., 201 f., 245. 

Heinrici, 125, 126, 398, etc. 

Heitmiiller, 556 f. 

Henderson, B. W., 339. 

Hesse, 402 f., 406. 

Hilgenfeld, 266 f., 287 f., 310 f., 404, 
etc. 

Hillmann, 211. 

Hirzel, 48 f. 

Hitzig, 82, 156, 403 f., 512. 

Hjelt, 601. 

Hobart, 263 f., 297 f. 

Hoben, 211. 

Hobson, 183 f. 

Hoffmann, R. A., 228. 

Hofmann, 224, 367. 

Holsten, 171, 235, etc. 

Holtzmann, H. J., 7, 30, 157f., 
172, 235, etc. 

Holtzmann, O., 62, 200, 220, 225, 
259f., 563. 

Hort, 94, 146, 327, 329, 386, 388, 
390, 406, 508. 

Hoss, 118. 

Hug, 429. 

Hupfeld, 7, 12. 

Hutton, R. H., 528. 


Inge, 528, 578. 


Jacobsen, 209. 

Jacobus, M. W., 8, 393. 

Jacoby, 44, 238. 

Jacquier, 255, 390, 407, ete. 

James, M. R., 34f., 314. 
annaris, 23. 

Nate 166. 

Jowett, B., 80, 89. 

Jillicher, 63, 80, 205, 281, 335, 357, 

413, 429f., ete. 
Jungst, 288 f. 


INDEX 


| Karl, 594. 


Kasteren, 240 f, 
Kattenbusch, 149. 


“Kawerau, 456. 


Keim, 252, 572, 606, 688, 
Kennedy, J. H., 121 f 
Kenyon, 88, 571. 

Kern, 76-77. 

Klein, 215. 

Klette, 324, 339. 
Klopper, 471. 

Knoke, 402, 406 f. 
Knopf, 354. 

Koennecke, 401, 458, ete. 
Krenkel, 121 f., 169, 404. 
Kreyenbihl, 29, 169, 535, 596. 
Kiihl, 366, 369 f. 
Kiinstle, 585 f. 

Kiippers, 581 f. 


Ladeuze, 370, 392. 

Lake, K., 203, 253. 

Laughlin, 403 f. 

Laurent, 62, 75, 159, 311, ete. 

Leipoldt, 314. 

Lemme, 403 f. 

Lewis, A. S., 39, 251, ete. 

Lewis, F. G., 608. 

Lewis, F. W., 339, 552f. 

Lewis, W. M., 435. 

Lietzmann, 114, 123. 

Lightfoot, 63, 86, 95, 97, 141, 161, 
407, 547. 

Lindsay, T. M., 402, 411. 

Lisco, 127 f., 139, 293. 

Lock, 385, 397. 

Loisy, 189, 226, 270, 281, 565, 573f., 
609. 

Loofs, 573. 

Liicke, 549. 

Luther, 17, 438, 457 f., 462, 465, 472. 


Mackintosh, R., 78, 122. 

Maier, 346 f. 

Manen, van, 9, 107, 142, 251, etc. 

Mansel, 409. 

Martin, G. C., 473. 

Massebieau, 473 f. 

Mayerhoff, 296, 305, 321, εἴς. 

Mayor, J. B., 351, 353 f., 364f. 

McGiffert, 62, 103, 286, 342f., 
402 f., 409, 473, etc. 

Ménégoz, 72, 451. 

Menzies, 227, 238. 

Meyer, A., 343. 

Milligan, 510. 

Moellendorf, von Wilamowitz, 482. 

Mommsen, 96, 220, 324-325, etc. 


INDEX 


Monnier, 326, 333. 
Moulton, J. H., 278, 435, 474, 502. 
Miller, G. H., 276. 
Muirhead, L., 208. 


Nageli, 79, 155, 164, 167, 350, 387, 
406. 


Naylor, 303. 

Nestle, 174, 196, 230, etc. 
Neteler, 62. 

Nicolardot, 246, 248, 280. 
Norden, 54, 58, 157, 189, 253, etc. 
N orris, J. Ρ +» 554: 


Oefele, 252. 

Otto, 408, 

Overbeck, 11, 12, 100, 283, 
305, etc. 


288, 


Parry, 469, 472. 

Paul, F. J., 552f. 

Paulus, 175. 

Peake, 7, 158, 471. 

Perdelwitz, 430f., 440. 

Peter, H., 48f. 

Pfleiderer, 82, 171, 175, 182, 
490, 593. 

Planck, 262. 

Plummer, 584. 

Porter, F. C., 518. 

Pott, A., 310. 

Purchas, 611 ἢ, 

Putnam, 294. 


261, 


Ramsay, Sir W. M., 91 f., 9§f., 
170, 339, 509. 

Rauch, 225, 234, 489. 

Reitzenstein, 45, 270, 531. 

Renan, 69, 141, 164, 301, 308, 
470, 600. 

Rendall, F., 440. 

Rendall, G. H., 121 f. 

Resch, 153, 188, 209f., 233, 240, 
251, 254 f., 336, 400, 439, etc. 

Resch, G., 307 f. 

Reuss, 470, 522. 

Réville, A., 191, 197 f., 602 

Rhees, 529. 

Riggenbach, 420. 

Rix, 549 f. 

Robinson, J. A., 503. 

Rodenbusch, 273, 

Roehrich, 201. 

Rohrbach, 238 f. 

Ropes, 279, 462. 

Ruegg, 281. 

Rutherford, W. G., 36. 

Ryder, 138. 


133, 


388, 


627 


Sabatier, 63, 87, 
490, etc. 

Saintsbury, 63, 428. 

Salmon, 54, 180, 182, 232, 358, etc. 

Sanday, 38, 388. 

Schiarfe, 236. 

Schiele, 448. 

Schlatter, 186, 588, 6o1. 

Schleiermacher, 71, 388, 405 f. 

Schmidt, H., 574. 

Schmidt, N., 209, 267. 

Schmidt, P., 72, 81, 489. 

Schmiedel, O., 224. 

Schmiedel, P. W., 91f., 121, 126, 
142, 341, 393. 

Scholten, 255, 566. 

Schon, 490. 

Schrader, 173. 

Schubart, 51. 

Schulthess, 463. 

Schiirer, 449. 

Schwanbeck, 288 f. 

Schwartz, 187 f., 190, 480, 574, 5sif., 
594 f., 602f., 613 f., 616. 

Schwegler, 261, etc. 

Schweitzer, 224, 533. 

Scott, E. F., 389, 427, 592. 

Scott, R., 80, 113, 142, 392. 

Selwyn, 481, 502, etc. 

Semler, 4, 138, 367. 

Seydel, 291. 

Simcox, G. A., 403, 430. 

Simcox, W. H., 279, 322, 387, 415, 
436-437. 

Simon, R., 5-6, 12. 

Simons, 207. 

Skeel, A. J., 120. 

Smith, G. A., 550. 

Smith, W. R., 445. 

Soden, von, 71, 147f., 167, 198f., 
294, 387, 403 f., 490. 

Solger, 228, 328. 

Soltau, 157 f., 255, 343, 559f, 574, 
594. 

Sorof, 288 f. 

Spitta, 81, 208, 221, 230f., 271, 
28] f., 431, 473f, 489, 559f., 

02. 


Stanton, 199, 240, 369, 578, 614. 
Steck, 73, 142, etc. 

Steinmann, A., 63, 91 f., 153 
Steinmetz, 141. 

Storr, 281. 

Strauss, 542 f., 565. 

Swete, 510, 604. 


Thoma, 502, 577. 
Thumb, 263 f. 


164, 469, 


110, 


628 


Tobler, 517. 
Turner, C. H., 60, 62, 499. 
Tyrrell, 51. 


Ullmann, 369. 
Usener, 211, 271 f., 523. 


Vigelius, 571. 

Vischer, 490. 

Vogel, 514, 613. 

Volkmar, 104, 340, 595. 

Voligraff, 134, 251, etc 

Welter Dy ΤῈ ota 27b735) 207, 
343 f., 452, 490, 566, 574. 


Wagenmann, 552. 

Waitz, 293, 554- 

Walker, D., 98. 

Warfield, 28, 105, ete. 

Weber, V., orf. 

Weiffenbach, 209, 230, 369. 

Weiss, B., 63, 202, 205, 276f., 382, 
434, ete. 

Weiss, J., 80, 89, 127, 156, 192, 
202, 229 f., 233, 276, 288, 304, 
480, 541, etc. 

Weisse, C. H., 141, 156, 167. 

Weizsicker, 80, 101, 125, 473, 490, 
543- 


INDEX 


Wellhausen, 19, 200 f., 203 f., 223 f., 
230f., 256, 274f., 294, 491, 544 
5534, 561, 581, 603. 

Wendland, 46. 

Wendling, 191, 227 f. 

Wendt, 201, 231, 541, 
561f., 591, etc. 

Wernle, 198, 223, 540. 

Wessely, 237. 

Westberg, 536, 561. 

Westcott, 266, 337, 595+ 

Wette, de, 7. 


552£, 559f., 


| Wetzel, 567. 


Weyland, G. J., 489. 
Wieseler, 163. 
Wilkinson, J. H., 
Wilkinson, J. R., 
Wittichen, 580. 
Woodhouse, 98. 
Workman, 491. 
Wrede, 9, 77f., 

434, 453, 530. 
Wright, 180, 277, 582. 
Wundt, 203 f. 


217. 
268. 


234, 340, 4241., 


Zahn, 62, 92, 141, 230, 341f., 476, 
503, 561, 576, 601, etc. 
Zimmermann, 230, 266f., 269f., 


274, 308. 
Zurhellen, 560f., 594. 


(C) PASSAGES FROM NT.* 


270; 1}-2}.. 
2 al β 259; Ree Ἧ 


Matthew, 1, 210, 
249 f. ; 273, "33 f. ; 
ΤΟ ; 707, 1100 5.807" » 26 ; 161%. 
252-253; 20%, 602 : 23%, 196 ; 
23°5" 204, 2015 2387-89, 256; 248), 
54; 28. τ. 254; aoe 253 f., 


571. 
Mark, 17%, 24, 229f. ; 9", 212, 575; 
10”, 602 f. ; 1217, 555; 168%, 238f., 


573, 579 
Luke, te 266 f. ; aie 268 f. ; 
3.3 20f.; 3%, 2695 4“, 545}: 
Cig 5736. 5 oh, 273f., 541 ; 9%, 
612; 107, 402; 117, 280 ; 11st.’ 
33; 124, 34; ΜΝ 34; 13h, 
542; ἘΠ Δ τ τα! 545; 2433, 

2753 2 3 

John, 1, ΒΖ 530, 581, 609 ; 
3, 553; αὐ, 29; 4", 35; 4“, 
5535 5", 554; 5% 549; 5™, 581; 


6, 546; 7%, 259, 560, 567; 7%, 
5543 7% 33, 568 ἐς; 7%, 555 5 860, 
581, 609; 9%, 549; om ; 
127), 549f. ; a 
PIC ΕΖ th tot 
567 f. ; 2088, 563; 220; 
205], 571; 21k, S70 hf, ἢν 
art.” s74f.3, 21%, Soy ἘΠ. 
576f., 618 f. 

Acts, 18, 35; 118, 35, 290; 2°, 53, 
945 2%, 314; 5%, 30; 1157 38, 30, 
311; 118 roof., 308'f., 6039's 
15}, 100, 307; 15%", 306; 168, 
92, 99; spe pri 17°, 353 
237", 306; 26 

Romans, 17, 141, "300-391 5 ant 
142-143; "32, 229 51 143% gm 
143; 8%, 143: gM, 1321, 1453 
12°, 1343 14%, 146; ΤΡ ΤΣ 
16, 134 f. ; 1625-21, 135, 139 f. 


* In order to facilitate reference, these passages are printed in the order 
in which they occur in the ordinary English Bible. 


INDEX 629 
s Corinthians, 2°, 31; 415, 112; 5° 3; ἔν 518, 401-402; 617, 33, 
ἘΠῚ 5") 1125. 121 5 2 14 406 
88; 14%, 113i. ; 1582-88) 573 15%, 2 Timotheus, hae 58; 3°, 399: 


114; τοῦ", ΤΙ} 1. 


8 Corinthians, 16, r17f.; 215:, 
128; 671, 125; το], r19f.3 
ri. 126, ΤΣ 12") 1293137, 


ΤΣ Sere ey 


Galatians, 12, 87; 127, 13; 21", 80, 


ἘΠῚ 


31 

Philippians, 11%, 400; 25, 166f., 
ὙΕΙ͂Σ: 3... 172.;} 315, 167. 

Colossians, 1°, 157; 21, τόο; 27, 
151; 218, 156; 3°, 43; 48, 53, 
159 f. 

1 Thessalonians, 2146. 3; 59, 505 
577, 160. 

2 Thessalonians, 2%, 77 f., 81 f.; 
82. 

1 Timotheus, 


Ephesians, 1 %41, 3501-5 5793 
1 fe 


30 


is 37, 411; 


410; 


4, 169; 41, 3043 41%, 138. 
cus 4O2) γ 325. Aor 


Hebrews, 2°, 455; 512, 443, 4473 


81, 4523 τοῦδ, 453-454; 11%, 
4553 13°, 454f.; 13%, 2461 
James, i eke py Vie ee 5 hss Sic 
IPs ΘΗ" 2 405 3) ΖΝ 302: 
3» 45: 4’, 731,403 5 4-17, 463 ; 
*, 333 57%, 463 


I Peter, 11, ὉΠ ΤΑΣ ORR Be 25; 
320; 434, 329; 5118. ror; 51Ὁ, 
3433 5, 336. 

2 Peter, 21", “369 fers 25..35, ΟΠ ἢ 
3", 350. 

Judas, v.*, 411. 

Σ ΠΟ Ππὶ 1: 588, 501. 595 2 
585; 3 5875 5°, 568 Sits 585 

Se AW eae OH an beet 
33, 409, 586; 47, 14f. ; 68, 507; 
2218-19 » 497. 


(D) PASSAGES FROM EARLY CHRISTIAN 
LITERATURE. 


Ascensio Isaiz : 10%, 172 ; 11%, 31. 

Barnabas, 5°, 410, 418. 

Basil, Contra Eunom. 219, 390. 

Clem. Alex., Strom. ii. 11. 52, 420; 
iii. oA 31, 588; iv. 9, 606; vii. 
17, 60 


Glen: Recogn. i. 17, 595; ii. 22, 
588. 
Clem. Rom. Dae 217} 7.5, 336; 


348, 1153 49°, 336; 613, 418. 
Didaché, 21, 3523 9%, 389; 112-3, 
476; 168, 70. 
Epiphanius, 42, 31.5 51°, 616; 575 
6 


590. 

Eusebius, H. 25. ii. 23, 18, 468; 
iii. 17, 506; iii. 18, 505; iii. 24, 
4, 344; ΠῚ. 31, 612; iii. 39, 9-10, 
612; iii. 39, 15-17, 185f.; v. 18. 
5, 18; vi. 14, 15, 4333 vie 25, 
433 f.5 vii. 25, 490f. 

Ignatius, ad Eph. 57%, 336; ad 
Magn. 8'-*, 578 ; 15,447; ad Phil. 
61, 497; ad Phil. 83, 23; ad Rom. 
3, 443; ad Smyrn. 17, 579; ad 
Trall. 5, 4433 7', 578. 


Irenzus, i. 3. 6, 3623 i. 6. 2, 588; 
IOs Ay ΟΣ ἢ ΣΟΥ 5315}. 2. 
5325 ἯΙ I. 1, 211; iii. 23. 8, 460; 
V. 1, 595; V- 19. 2, 363; ν. 33. 
2, 23, 610. 

Jerome, c. Pelag. 2%, 242; de utris 
inlust. 1, 364; 2, 4723 5, 4383 7, 


312 
Justin, Dials 21) 421; 475, 410; 
48, 210; 81, 497 f.; 82, 372; 
108, 562. <Afol. 13, 407; τὸ. 
580. 
Martyr. Polyk. 14, 602; 16, 617. 
Origen, ¢. Cels. 7%, 595. 
Philastrius, Ixxxviii., 13. 
Polykarp, 1%, 394 ; 33 173f.3 7, 189, 
595 3, 121, 394; 12%, 419. 
Tertullian, adv. Mare. MW 2. ASAE 
II, 390; v. 21, 419f.; v. 60-61, 
390; de bapt. 17, 4153 praescr. 
haer. 25, 5993; praescr. haer. 36, 
52, 607; de cult. fem. i. 3, 3523 
de anima, 11, 587; de monog. 3, 
115 f.; adv. Prax. 25, 571. 
Theophilus, ad «πέρ. 2", 494. 


630 INDEX 


(Z) GREEK AND LATIN WORDS 


ἀδελφή, 164. Adyos, 273, 464, 502. 
ἀκωλύτως, 33, 294. μένειν, 574, 576. 
ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, 325 f. μήν, 265. 

dvoula, 256. Ναζωραῖος, 33-34. 
ἀπομνημονεύματα, 44f., 217. παράκλητος, 592. 

ἀρχή, 229. Parthos, 476, 596. 

‘Agia, 93. πίστις, 346, 348, 411, 465. 
βουλή, 384. πορνεία, 307. 

γράμματα, 88. πραιτώριον, 169. 

γραφαί, 363, 608. πράξεις, 285. 

διαθήκη, 435. πρότερον, 286. 

διατριβή, 46 f. Stilus, 51. 

διήγησις, 241. Suasoriae, 49, 415. 
dissecutt, 140. συναγωγή, 464. 

'EBpatos, 432, 448. Σύνζυγε, 171. 

ἔγραψα, 88, III, 333, 594. συστατική (ἐπιστολή), 127, 137, ΦΌ4 
ἐκεῖνος, 508. 482. 

epistolae, 174. τάξις, 187 f. 

ἑρμηνευτής, 186 f., 332. τελειόω, 426 f., 443, 457-458 
ἔξοδος, 211, 372. τινες, 85, 345. 

εὐθύς, 233. titulus, 390-391. 
ἰδιόγραφον, 52. ὑπόμνημα, 189, 217-218, 
tnstrumentum, 21. ὑποζώννυμι, 299. 

καθολική, 18. ὕψιστος, 449. 

κακοποιός, 325. χαίρειν, 48. 

κυρία, 476, 482. χάρις, 122, 322, 454. 


λόγια (τά), 189, ᾿Ιφῷ γηλαφῶντος, 588, 59% 


The International 
Theological Library 


ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS 


THEOLCGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. By CwHarites A. Briccs, D.D., 
D.Litt., sometime Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTA- 
MENT. By S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Regius Professor of 
Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 

[Revised and Enlarged Edition. 


CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By the Rev. JoHnN 
SxrnnER, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Lit- 
erature, College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge, England, 
and the Rev. Owen WHITEHOUSE, B.A., Principal and Professor of Hebrew, 
Chestnut College, Cambridge, England. 


OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By Henry Preserven Sura, D.D., 
Librarian, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. 


THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By A. B. Davmson, D.D., 
LL.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh. 
[Now Ready. 


AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTA- 
MENT. By Rev. James Morratt, B.D., Minister United Free Church, 
Broughty Ferry, Scotland. [Revised Edition. 


CANON AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By CASPAR RENE 
Grucory, D.D., LL.D., sometime Professor of New Testament Exegesis in 
the University of Leipzig. [Now Ready. 


THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY 


A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By 
ArtHuR C. McGirrert, D.D., President Union Theological Seminary, 
New York. [Now Ready. 


CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By 
FRANK C. PorTER, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology, Yale University, 
New Haven, Conn. 


THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Georce B. STEVENS, 
D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New 
; Haven, Conn. [Now Ready. 


BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. By G. BucHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor 
of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. 


THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH. By Rosert Rainey, D.D., 


LL.D., sometime Principal of New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready. 
THE LATIN CHURCH IN THE MIDDLEJAGES. By ANDRE LAGARDE. 
[Now Ready. 


THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES. By W. F. ApENneEy, D.D., 
Principal of Independent College, Manchester. [Now Ready. 


THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY. By T. M. Linosay, D.D., Prin- 
cipal of the United Free College, Glasgow. [Vow Ready. 


THE REFORMATION IN LANDS BEYOND GERMANY. By T. M. 
Linpsay, D.D. [Now Ready. 


THEOLOGICAL SYMBOLICS. By Cuartss A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., 
sometime Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union 
Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By 6. P. FisHer, D.D., 
LL.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, 
New Haven, Conn. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. 


CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. By A. V. G. ALLEN, D.D., sometime 
Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, 
Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. 


PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. By Grorce GatLoway, D.D., Minister 
of United Free Church, Castle Douglas, Scotland. [Now Ready. 


HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. 11. China, Japan, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, 
India, Persia, Greece, Rome. By GrorcE F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Pro- 
fessor in Harvard University. [Now Ready. 


HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. II. Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism. 
By GrEorcE F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor in Harvard University. 
[Now Ready. 


APOLOGETICS. ByA.B. Bruce, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa- 
ment Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. 


THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. By WiLuiAMN. CriarKkE, D.D., 
sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Hamilton Theological Semi- 
nary. [Now Ready. 


THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. By Wr11Am P. Paterson, D.D., Professor 
of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. 


THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. By H. R. 
MaAckInTOosH, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Theology, New College, Edinburgh. 
[Now Ready. 


THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. By GeEorGE B. STE- 
VENS, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University. 
[Now Ready. 


THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. By WrittrAm ADAMS 
Brown, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 


CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By NEwman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of Congrega- 
tional Church, New Haven. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. 


THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE WORKING CHURCH. By 
WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., sometime Pastor of Congregational Church, 


Columbus, Ohio. [Now Ready. 
THE CHRISTIAN PREACHER. By A. E. Garviz, D.D., Principal of 
New College, London, England. [Now Ready. 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. By CuHarites HENRY Rosin- 
son, D.D., Hon. Canon of Ripon Cathedral and Editorial Secretary of the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 

[Now Ready. 


Pty Ad ᾿ ᾿ ΡΛ ἈΝ ον δῶν ἼΩΝ ᾿Σ Ὁ: 
Ὁ} | “ΝΥΝ ἌΝ, Se ie : 
PORE Ὁ We vas ‘ j : ; ee Vat ᾿ ER oy 


Tae eye sake Ge Re ee ἜΝ ἂν ri ν᾿ 
mi Ὁ » δῶν , ὑπ Ae a ᾿ ἂν the 
ay RA A a ML Ai "ἧς Lonny A ΜΝΑ͂Σ 
Ἂ ΠΝ ᾿ 1 Lv da | Π 
ἢ τ é i 
\ a Ney ‘ rs ἫΝ 
' ¥.t Pies ἡ es mia Lia σὴν 
ΓΙ a e Π i 
ΤᾺ ν PFs ΕΝ gy! Aa. me ΟΝ aa δὲ ἐξ. ΤΌΝ da 
? xe) + t } ; ὶ δ τῇ 
" ΨΥ ᾿ a : 
Νὰ δ ΝΣ ΗΝ san 
i ) ν᾿ ἘΥΝ i » ‘ 
" 4 
ΓῚ 4 
Ὁ a CV ASR ds | Nolen our 
2 } ἢ ν « ἤ 
} δ} ) i ' 
j . wi ‘ as d wien iz 
Γ Ἂ ae % ae at 
᾿ ᾿ ΣΎ 
* Vs 
᾿ 
‘ 6 Ἵ » tals i. 
» t " λ, ἐν ν Ν᾿ 
y ᾷ εν 
Rs i. δ ri 3 f ta Ay a ae 
eS a ni : κα ex ; 
" a 
a 
ὶ » 5} ial τς Vie 
‘ Ὁ" ἐν 1 hie 45. 3 
ὲ q Py Ἢ ΨΥ ᾿ ΜᾺ γι αν 
ΓΑ , } ‘4 
» i ᾿ “ΔΊ 
ἣν" hog 
. i j 
‘ 
. ' 
‘ 
δε 
ΟῚ ΝΣ 
ἢ Her 
" μ 
‘ 
! δ᾽, ‘ 
+ 
᾿ 7 
ὺ 
᾿ 
a Δ] δι iV 
᾿ sf ψ ὐλν 
i ‘ ‘od 
, γ᾿ γα 
; by μαι τ 
Ὶ J » 4 ΝΥ 
Ἶ ‘ ole 
᾽Ν 
Ρ »" Ἰ " 
7 j Γ 


The | 
International Critical Commentary 


ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS 


THE OLD TESTAMENT 


GENESIS. The Rev. JoHN Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor of 
Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church 
of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready. 


EXODUS. The Rev. A. R. 5. Kennepy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
University of Edinburgh. 


LEVITICUS. J. F. ὅτεέννινο, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. 
NUMBERS. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 


Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready. 
DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., sometime 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready. 


JOSHUA. The Rev. GEorcE ADAM SmiTH, D.D., LL.D., Principal of the 
University of Aberdeen. 


JUDGES. The Rev. GreorcE F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of The- 


ology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. 
SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smiru, D.D., Librarian, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. 


KINGS. [Author to be announced.] 


CHRONICLES. The Rev. Epwarp L. Curris, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready. 


EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., D.D., Pro- 
fessor of Old Testament Literature, General Theological Seminary, New 
York City. [Now Ready. 


PSALMS. The Rev. Cuas. A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Graduate 
Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological 


Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Ready. 
PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. Του, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. 


JOB. The Rev. G. BucHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mans- 
field College, Oxford, and the Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., sometime 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [In Press. 


THe INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 


ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXVII. The Rev. G. BucHANAN Gray, D.D., Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Mansfeld College, Oxford. [Now Ready. 


ISAIAH. Chaps. XXVIII-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BucHanan Gray, D.D. 
Chaps. LX-LXVI. The Rev. A. 5. PEAKE, M.A., D.D., Dean of the Theo- 
logical Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Biblical Exegesis 
in the University of Manchester, England. 


JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. 


EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Interpre- 
tation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. CHartes F. 
Burney, D.Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John’s College, 
Oxford. 


DANIEL. The Rev. JoHN P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor 
of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, : now Rector of St. Michael’s 
Church, New York City. 


AMOS AND HOSEA. W.R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime President 
of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [Now Ready. 


MICAH, ZEPHANIAH, NAHUM, HABAKKUK, OBADIAH AND JOEL. 
Prof. JoHn M. P. SmitH, University of Chicago; W. Hayes Warp, D.D., 
LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New York; Prof. Jutrus A. BEWER, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. 


HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, MALACHI AND JONAH. Prof. H. G. MitcHe tt, 
D.D.; Prof. Joun M. P. Smitu, Ph.D., and Prof. J. A. BEwrEr, Ph.D. 
[Now Ready. 


ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart- 
ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready. 


ECCLESIASTES. Prof. GEorcE A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli- 
cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [Now Ready. 


RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rey. CHARLES A. 


Brices, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Graduate Professor of Theological Ency- 
clopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. WitLoucHBy C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and 
Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [Now Ready. 


ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. Goutp, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa- 
ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. , [Now Ready. 


ST. LUKE. The Rev. ALFRED PLuMmer, D.D., late Master of University 
College, Durham. [Now Ready. 


THE INTERNATIONAL -CRITICAL COMMENTARY 


ST. JOHN. The Right Rev. JonN HENRY BERNaRD, D.D., Bishop of 
Ossory, Ireland. 


HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rey. WitiiaAm Sanpay, D.D., 
LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. WIL- 
LoUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, 
Exeter College, Oxford. 


ACTS. The Rev. Ὁ. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, 
Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. Batre, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the 
Bishop of London. 


ROMANS. The Rey. WiriiAmM Sanpday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret 
Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. 
A. C. Hapa, M.A., D.D., Principal of King’s College, London. 

[Vow Ready. 
1. CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. Arcn Rosertson, D.D., LL.D., 
Lord Bishop of Exeter, and Rev. ALFRED PLumMMER, D.D., late Master of 
University College, Durham. [Now Ready. 


Il. CORINTHIANS. The Rev. ALFRED PLtumMER, M.A., D.D., late 
Master of University College, Durham. [Now Ready. 


GALATIANS. The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of New 
‘Testament Literature, University of Chicago. [Now Ready. 


EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K. ΑΒΒΟΤΎΊ, B.D., 
D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, 
now Librarian of the same. [Now Ready. 


PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. Marvin R. VINCENT, 
D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New 
York City. [Now Ready. 


THESSALONIANS. The Rev. James E. Frame, M.A., Professor of 
Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. 

[Now Ready. 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. WatTer Lock, D.D., Warden 
of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 


HEBREWS. The Rev. James Morratt, D.D., Minister United Free 
Church, Broughty Ferry, Scotland. 


ST. JAMES. The Rev. JAmMes H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of New 
Testament Criticism in Harvard University. [Now Ready. 


PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. CHARLES Bicc, D.D., sometime Regius 
Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 
[Now Ready. 


THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES. The Rev. E. A. Brooke, B.D., Fellow 
and Divinity Lecturer in King’s College, Cambridge. [Now Ready. 


REVELATION. The Rev. Ropert H. CnHarres, M.A., D.D., sometime 
Y’rofcssor of Biblical Greck in the University of Dublin. [2 vols. Now Ready. 


ᾧ nen bin pe 


a bt ie 
Υ, Kia ie inieh oe 


\ 


i i ΝΥΝ 
are a ΔΝ 
) ¥ hes Pe < 
4 re ΤῊ a > FP. DAs 
an eh wat Von ahi 
af aye Ψ Ψ ΓΝ" 
- 
mega; vay I, Lig 
ὑ hay ty Lie 


a 4s 
ie aes 


i ὴ rh ᾽ ἥ ‘ay 
Le wie WAN Ἄν 

᾿ ἜΦΥΣ ἘΝ az 

ΝΥ γι ) 


————— 


] i | 
‘ ΠΝ 
, wie 


DATE DUE 


᾿ " fr to 
“ΠῚ ΜΙΝ ΗΝ 
a | } re ee 


GAYLORD PRINTEOINU.S.A 


BS2361 .M69 c.2 
An introduction to the literature of the 


NT 


1 1012 00052 3284 


